text:
bookshelvesall (1456)
|num pages
|avg rating
|num ratings
|date pub
|date pub (ed.)
|my rating
|read count
|date started
|date read
|date added
|date purchased
|purchase location
Jul 12, 2001
liked it
Cicero vs Caeser
24 April 2016
It seems that by the time this trial came about the Roman Republic was heading downhill fast. Around this time the tensi Cicero vs Caeser
24 April 2016
It seems that by the time this trial came about the Roman Republic was heading downhill fast. Around this time the tension between the plebeians and the patricians was reaching fever pitch and there were a number of prominent individuals appearing that were rallying the plebians to their cause. This, as is understandable, was quite upsetting to the patricians because it meant that it would undermine the status quo, so the patricians began to take things into their own hands – through murder (though in many cases this was simply an extension of the unrest that had began around the time of Sulla). The murder at the centre of this trial was of Saturnius, and after he met his unfortunate fate Julius Caesar, who was also rising to prominence at this time, decided to bring back the perdullio, which is basically the offence of high treason.
This is the charge that Rabario was brought up on, and unlike the other trials that Cicero has participated in, this one was being held in a special court before Caesar and his cousin, and duly found guilty. However Rabario had the right of appeal (since this was basically a kangaroo court, for want of a better word). The problem was that Cicero, in this instance, was facing an uphill battle, namely because the jury was simply going to ratify Caeser's original findings. It seemed that despite Cicero being, at the time, the foremost orator in Rome, this was a case in which his brilliant public speaking skills were going to be of no use. Rabario has already been convicted, and the ratification of that decision, especially since Caesar was a man of the people, was going to happen. It was only due to outside events (and the fact that Caeser's objectives had been met) that Rabario was acquitted.
The interesting thing about this text is there is a lot of discussion about Mars hill, and crucifixion. The funny thing with crucifixion (not that it is actually all that funny because it is a pretty horrid way to go) is that many of us simply connect it with Jesus Christ, as if he was the only person in history that was ever crucified (not counting the two thieves that were crucified to either side of him, though sometimes I wonder if there were a lot more people being crucified at the same time, it is just that the thieves were the only ones mentioned). Mind you, those of us who are not familiar with Roman history are quite likely to believe that. Okay, while he may have been the most famous person to have ever been crucified, he wasn't the only one. The interesting thing is that this was a punishment that was generally dished out on people who were not Roman citizens, with the exception of high treason. This is why the topic was being brought up – this was going to be Rabario's fate. No doubt Cicero was doing his best to spare Rabario from going down that road, especially since it would have been incredibly undignified for a Roman of high standing to meet that fate (and I suspect that this was one of the main reasons that Caesar wanted him charged with high treason).
Another problem with this oration is that it is not entirely extant – there are a number of sections that had been lost (probably because the manuscript has been damaged – it was not clear in the text how much of the manuscript was destroy). This makes following Cicero's argument a little difficult as it appears that it jumps about the place. This is one of the problems with ancient texts in that even if we have copies of the text it does not necessarily mean that we have the entire text, and sometimes the missing section contain some key idea or important information in regards to context. This didn't seem to be a huge issue with this text though as we do retain the opening remarks and large sections of the defense speech.
Still, one does sometimes wonder if it is possible to be able to persuade a jury who has already made up their mind about something, though we notice that these days the opposite can happen, especially in media circuses, or where public figures are involved. In one sense my mind drifts back to the infamous OJ Simpson trial, a court case that was incredibly hard to ignore since it would be dominating the headlines every night. As we all know he was eventually acquitted, though some wonder whether this was because there was a lack of evidence, or whether it had more to do with the media circus. However, in many cases all one needs is a really good lawyer (and these guys come with a very high price tag) to be able to turn an almost certain finding of guilt into an acquittal. ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 22, 2016
Apr 23, 2016
Apr 22, 2016
Jun 08, 2012
really liked it
Cicero's First Trial
25 February 2016
I must admit, I love a good murder trial. Okay, this is only one of four that are in the book that I'm reading (M Cicero's First Trial
25 February 2016
I must admit, I love a good murder trial. Okay, this is only one of four that are in the book that I'm reading (Murder Trials) but I feel that it is probably worth reviewing all on its own (in fact I'll be reviewing each of the four trials individually and then looking at the book at a whole once I've finished it – which does break it up a bit). Mind you, this is only the defence spech, as written by one of Rome's greatest orator's, Marcus Cicero, so unfortunately we can only work out what the opposing argument was based upon what Cicero says, however since it was his first (actually second, but since his first was a contractual dispute that didn't end in bloodshed it sort of doesn't count) trial and he was victorious, and managed to avoid getting executed by Sulla, I guess I would be with the majority to say that I was convinced by his argument.
Anyway, poor Sextus Roscius Junior (whom I will refer to as Junior from now on) was having a bit of a rough time. First of all his father, Sextus Roscius Senior (whom I will refer to as, you guessed it, Senior) was fraudulently put on the proscription list, a list of people that the then dictator Sulla had decreed as enemies of the state and thus could be murdered with impunity. So, when Senior was murdered all of his property was confiscated and sold to the highest bidder, that happened to be the guy that originally put his name on the list (sounds like there was a bit of corruption going on here). So, poor Junior is left penniless, but Chrysogonus (the villain of the piece) is not content to let Junior live the life of a beggar, but instead accuses him of murdering his father, which was considered to be an incredibly heinous crime in Ancient Rome.
Anyway, the whole case was incredibly toxic – not only was Senior one of the proscribed, but Junior was a parricide (father killer), so not surprisingly nobody wanted to touch it, with the exception of one young barrister, Marcus Cicero, who was starting to make his name in Roman society. It was obvious to anybody with half a brain that Junior was not a murder, and this was simply an act by Chrysogonus to clean up a few loose ends, but the problem was to get on to the wrong side of Chrysogous was to dance with death. The fact that Ciciero did, and lived to tell the tale, goes to show how cunning he actually was.
The argument is intriguing because Cicero goes to prove that since parricide is such a heinous crime, only the most depraved and violent of individuals could even consider doing such a thing. Okay, we see it happen these days, and in fact there was a recently case in Adelaide when the son of the coach of one of the football teams murdered the coach. Sure, people were horrified, but not so much because his son had committed the deed, but rather because of the status of the person that was murdered. However there were suggestions that drugs were involved in that particular instance.
Family ties were much stronger back in those days than they are today, however even then a rebellious child would still be disinherited and cut off from the family. These days I sometimes wonder if our family ties are anywhere near as great. I suspect it had something to do with Rome being a patriarchal society, and while divorce was common, due to the nature of society back then the male tended to retain the right to the property while the woman would be out on her own (there was no alimony in Ancient Rome). These days the male isn't necessarily the one who retains the right to the property, which means that he does not necessarily remain the master of the household. In the Roman era, because the father was the head of the household, murdering him would be akin to murdering a king.
The other interesting thing that Cicero does (and I'm not sure if defence counsel's do it today) is that he then goes to prove that while Junior does not fit the character of a person who could murder his father, Chrysogonus was the type of person to murder Senior. However the catch is (and Cicero is clear on this in his speech), is that it doesn't matter whether Chrysogonus is guilty or not, Senior had been proscripted, and as such if it is the case that Chrysogonus is guilty, he acted within the bounds of the law. In the end all Cicero was doing was saving Junior's neck. ...more
Notes are private!
Feb 22, 2016
Feb 25, 2016
Feb 22, 2016
Jan 01, 2014
Mar 07, 2015
really liked it
Are We Screwed?
17 February 2016
As I was reading the first part of this book, trawling through countless numbers of examples of how the fossil fuel in Are We Screwed?
17 February 2016
As I was reading the first part of this book, trawling through countless numbers of examples of how the fossil fuel industry is raping and pillaging our Earth, how our political leaders are in their pockets, and how were are constantly being bombarded with propaganda as to how climate change is really nothing to worry about while the true effects are being hidden behind beautiful pictures much like the slums of Dehli where during the Commonwealth Games, I simply couldn't help thinking about how we as a species are heading down a path that not only will end up destroying the planet, but also destroying that which we hold dear while ceding ever more power to the aristocrats that currently rule the planet. I guess a part of me was used to what I had read in Klein's two previous books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine where she basically tells us how bad things are yet offers no solutions that I expected that this book, with the enormity of the crisis that we are facing, would once again end with a completely hopeless note.
However this is not the case, particularly since we are talking about our future here. Simply by taking the strategy that Klein used previously would result in us giving up and basically eating and drinking because we might as well have fun now if the climate change is going to have such an impact upon our world that everything that we have managed to build for ourself is inevitably going to be destroyed. Instead Klein actually ends on a message of hope, dedicating half of the book to revealing how former enemies have united against a common foe and how mass movements are developing to push back against the corporate interests that currently dominate our thinking.
Mind you, there is still a pervasive belief amongst society that climate change first of all is somebody else's problem, or that it is rubbish (such as my uncle's statement that 'Climate Change is crap' without actually providing me with any evidence to support that view). The scary thing is not so much the climate change deniers but rather those who are basically apathetic towards the situation, those who accept that something must be done, but leave it to somebody else to solve the problem, or even believe the corporate propaganda that suggests that they are doing something, but not demanding any proof that anything is being done.
Personally I have encountered numerous climate change deniers in my time that simply make the statement 'climate change is crap' with the belief that that simple statement invalidates any argument that I might raise to the contrary. Mind you these people tend to resort to logical fallacies to support their arguments, or even just raise their voices to drown out any opposition simply because they are incapable of mounting any rational argument to the contrary. However when I confront such people I try to steer away from climate change per se and put the argument in perspective by point out the real costs of our out of control industrialised society such as the destruction of the natural environment:
the fact that in many places around the world our air is becoming toxic:
while our water systems are becoming undrinkable:
[image error]
It was interesting to note that as I perused the responses to this book that there where quite a few positive reactions from readers, and one who had slammed it as another part of the left wing conspiracy to take his money and his freedom (which attracted a lot of harsh criticism). At first it seemed like Goodreads is full of people who actually care about the environment and desire to see a better world that isn't ruled by corporate interests, however I then realised that this is social media, and that when I jumped over to Atlas Shrugged I discovered that there was just as many positive responses to that book. The thing with social media is that you can pretty much filter out anything that you don't like so that the only things that you see are those that reinforce your worldview.
I still remember when I first became aware of the crisis that our modern uncontrolled capitalist society is creating. A friend of mine handed me a little booklet about the World Trade Organisation and suddenly my right wing individualist worldview was changed forever. Yet I have to admit that despite the fact that I don't own a car, and don't live a life where I am endlessly consuming, I know I could do much better. The reason I don't own a car has more to do with the fact that it is cheaper to use public transport (and the public transport in Melbourne is pretty good), and while I may not cycle through commodities as fast as humanly possible (while cluttering my house with useless stuff, though I am probably going to need to get a new phone since my current one is now over three years old and basically reaching the end of its life span), I still buy tea in takeaway containers (and maybe a coffee) and shop at the major supermarkets.
Yet I also see some positives happening as well. Okay, while people are putting ever more solar panels on the roof, when the current Liberal (conservative) government was elected they began to systematically cripple the renewable energy industry in favour of their mates in the coal industry. However while the fossil fuel industry was enjoying bumper profits for the past twenty odd years everything changed suddenly as the price of oil and iron ore completely collapsed. All of a suddenly it isn't profitable to look for new sources of oil, yet the companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy are forced to continue pumping as they simply cannot afford to shut down any wells, which is further exacerbating the collapse. This suddenly changes the picture as cost intensive extraction methods become less appealing, but untapped reserves are suddenly left in the ground (which means that some oil baron is unlikely to come along and start fraking your backyard). Mind you, everything that I said is probably invalid because I do own shares in a gold mine and an energy company (though the energy company did purchase some windfarms so they could say "hey, look at us, we care about the environment, we own a wind farm!").
Anyway I think I will leave it at this, however if you are interested in reading more I have written a post on the subject on my blog. ...more
Notes are private!
Feb 08, 2016
Feb 17, 2016
Feb 08, 2016
Dec 01, 2015
Dec 01, 2015
really liked it
The New Media Empires
7 October 2015
The problem that I find with some books, especially these non-fiction books, is that there is so much in them that The New Media Empires
7 October 2015
The problem that I find with some books, especially these non-fiction books, is that there is so much in them that it can be difficult to remember all of the points that the author has made without having to write copious notes. The other problem is that since I am incredibly time poor I really have little time to craft a brilliant and concise review based upon these notes, so in the end I generally just read through the book and hope for the best when I come to writing the review (usually the day that I have finished it because if I end up leaving it too long I'll end up having a huge backlog of reviews that I'll never get through).
I have to say that it was been quite a while since I have read a good non-fiction book, though I have to say that this particular one did drag on a bit, especially when he was describing in minutae conversations that occurred between editors, journalists, and their leaks. He also went into great detail of the stress and the decisions on whether to publish and when, which once again I found that it cause the book not only to drag on a bit, but to also make it sound like some form of soap opera. However, we must remember that these decisions weren't taken lightly because the media, even the left leaning newspapers such as the Guardian and the Fairfax newspapers, are still very much under the heal of what are becoming quite tyrannical governments. However, there are a few things that I wish to discuss that I got out of this book.
The Conservative Right to Rule
A couple of chapters of this book talks about how the media went to war against a couple of left wing governments in the past (and even in the present). For instance the government of Howard Wilson in England and the government of Gough Whitlam in Australia, found themselves in the wrong side of an angry media. This I suspect is what has caused the labour party to shift dangerously to the right, which has in turn pushed conservative parties further to the right. This is not surprising because the conservative governments have always represented the wealthy elite (well, not always, but generally). The thing with conservative governments is that they like the status quo – which is why they are conservative – and the status quo generally means that the rich can continue to make money, no matter what the consequences. The problem is that if the voting public actually knew what the conservative governments were about then nobody would vote for them, which is why they resort to getting elected through deceit, propaganda, and the use of the media.
The thing with the media is that they are, in all cases, controlled by the wealthy elite. Even the journalists who write for them tend to inhabit the upper crust of society. I have read a number of articles in various newspapers (including the left leaning Fairfax) where the journalists are bragging about how they are in the highest income tax bracket and how they fly business class everywhere while us plebs have to put up being squeezed like sardines into economy class (not that I could actually justify paying the exorbitant fees that business class charges). As such there is generally a bias in favour of governments that support the status quo.
However, it is not the wealthy that also support the status quo – the unions do as well. There was an interesting point Fowler made when he spoke about how Rupert Murdoch was attempting to transform his London newspapers into a more technologically efficient production by creating a sophisticated computer network that would eliminate the need for a typing pool and and printers. This angered the unions because it meant that a lot of their workforce would be made redundant. Now, I'm no big fan of Murdoch, and I do support the unions in some cases, but in this instance what we are seeing is that the working class is actually working against innovation (which I believe is a good thing).
However, that doesn't let the conservatives off the hook because we have other areas where they are acting against innovation because of the effect that it will have on their profits. Take Murdoch once again. In Australia he has a joint monopoly over the pay TV network Foxtel (in Australia you have only one pay TV network). In 2007 the Labor government was elected on a platform of installing superfast internet connections straight to the home, which meant that Murdoch would suddenly find himself in competition with online streaming services such as Netflix (Foxtel also offers an online service as well). Seeing his monopolistic position under threat he then turned against the Labor government, and when the Coalition was re-elected in 2013 they ended up scrapping Labor's internet plan to put in place a much more limited, and in turn much more costly, alternative.
Leaking Taps
It goes without saying that government's don't like leaks – it embarrasses them and exposes their criminal acts. Poor Tony Abbott, in the weeks before he was knifed in the back, didn't just have to deal with leaks, but with a gushing torrent that flowed out of the cabinet room and into the nation's media. However his problem was only embarrassment and provided ever more evidence of his incompetency as a prime minister. The leaks go much deeper when we are talking about illegal acts being committed by a government during wartime. It is interesting that the Nazi's were able to keep their final solution quiet for so long while atrocities such as the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the scandal at Abu Graib were released for the world to see (though it may have something to do with them having a much tighter control over the media than does the modern democracy).
Fowler talks about a number of important leaks, beginning with the Pentagon Papers up to the revelations released by Edward Snowden. Elsberg actually got off really lightly, namely because the government's case against him was thrown out due to illegal wire taps. This is not the case these days as Chelsea Manning is now serving a 30 year prison sentence, Julian Assange is holed up in the Equadorian embassy, and Edward Snowden is living on borrowed time in Russia. The government has learned from its mistakes with Elsberg and are getting ever more serious in threatening would be whistle blowers and attempting to make examples of those who have taken the courage to stand up, produce evidence, and say to the world 'this is wrong'.
Fowler refers to protections in the United States and Europe, such as the 4th Amendment and the European Charter of Human Rights, that seeks to protect such whistle blowers, though governments nethertheless resort to Espionage Acts and claim that such revelations work to aid the enemy. Thus it is not surprising that Bush created an endless war on terror since this not only creates an enemy, but also provides an excuse to punish the release of such sensitive information. Further, it also puts pressure on newspapers to be very circumspect in what they print, because if the government deems that a publication is going to hurt it's war efforts then they can have the paper shut down. Fowler even tells a story of how British Intelligence entered the offices of the Guardian and destroyed all of the harddrives that contained the information provided to them by Snowdon.
Australia has gone one step further. The only freedom of speech that we have is the freedom of political speech which is implied in the constitution. This has enabled the government to enact laws that not only punishes whistle blowers, but also punishes journalists for publishing the information that they have released.
The Changing Landscape
The internet has changed the world in an incredible way and has hit many traditional businesses incredibly hard – no more so than the newspapers, and the print media has struggled ever since to attempt to remain relevant in its onslaught. The thing about the internet is that it has made access to information not just easy, but cheap. As such people have turned away from the print media and onto the internet in droves, and many of the traditional newspapers have struggled to make a profit. It is even suggested that some papers in the Murdoch Empire have to be supported by other papers because they are operating at a loss.
A number of newspapers have succeeded in creating paywalls, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Australian Financial Review. However these newspapers generally target a niche market, which means that when it went online their niche market followed them (and having an interest in the stock market, I have to say that the free publications tend to be of pretty poor quality). However, this didn't work with the traditional papers because people simply weren't interested in paying for the content. Sure, paying $1.00 for some saucy tales in the local rag was okay a decade ago, but these days there are so many websites that offer the same sordid offerings for free, nobody sees the need to fork out that $1.00 anymore (let alone pay for access).
These papers used to stay afloat through advertising however the internet changed all that. People don't buy newspapers anymore to peruse the classifieds, they go to the internet. If you want to buy a car, a house, second hand goods, or even look for a job, this is now all on the internet. When we bought our house we found it by perusing the internet. I don't buy the paper to look for jobs anymore because, once again, they are all on the internet. In fact if I want some second hand goods, once again I go to the internet. The newspapers no longer have a monopoly on ads, and this has hurt them substantially. In fact the ads that they gain on the internet does not make them anywhere as much money as they did before. Furthermore, some paywalls are actually very easy to defeat (especially the ones that give you a limited number of free articles) – just clear your cookies every so often.
The Security State
The thing about the War on Terrorism is that the government has actually done a very good job in convincing us that terrorists could strike any place and at any time. The catch is that not all that many people have actually died of a terrorist attack in a western nation. However they have convinced us that not only do we need to be vigilant, but that they need greater powers to fight this threat. The problem is that they have already had those powers, it's just that they weren't used all that well. Take for instance the Sydney siege – the nutter that was responsible had been on the watch list for years, but they then decided to take him off. If they had kept watching him they might have stopped him before he killed two innocent victims.
Then there is the mandatory collection of data (not just metadata, but the data that the NSA has been collecting). Once again it is actually very easy to circumvent it. Fowler speaks of how a couple of journalists (and Manning) were caught through their slack use of the internet, and that is something that we need to be aware of. Okay, I'm not writing this anomalously, and really have no desire to start becoming invisible on the net (particularly since I would prefer people to know that I am the author).
The concerning thing is the suggestion that the NSA actually has the power to activate and hijack our smartphones, even if they are turned off. This is all done through the SIM card. The thing with smartphones is that you need to register to get a SIM card. Once again there are ways around this, even if it involves only using WiFi hotspots (though a number of them require you to pre-register, and pay by credit card, beforehand, which means that they are able to track you, though once again there are ways around this). Mind you, even back in the days of the old clunky phones that could only send texts and make phone calls, I knew that the government could track you, however with modern technology they can be much more precise. ...more
Notes are private!
Sep 30, 2015
Oct 07, 2015
Sep 30, 2015
Oct 28, 1726
it was amazing
Biting political satire
9 September 2015
I'm sure many of us are familiar with the tale of the sailor from England who after a shipwreck finds himself Biting political satire
9 September 2015
I'm sure many of us are familiar with the tale of the sailor from England who after a shipwreck finds himself bound to the beach on an unknown island surrounded by a race of people who are substantially smaller that him.
Some of you are probably even familiar with the not so recent Jack Black film (which I have seen but can't remember much of it beyond Jack Black heading out in a speed boat from Miami and getting caught in a storm).
From a very young age I have always seen this story as a children's book, however it wasn't until I reached university that I discovered that it is actually biting political satire. It is interesting how a book is released in one age and people see it for what it is however as time passes the original intention of the book takes a back seat and the story ends up taking an entirely new meaning. Mind you, the children's tales that we tend to be familiar with are quite watered down to the point that the original meaning has been lost (and most of them only tell the story of Lilliput).
It was quite coincidental that in Bible study were were looking at the book of Revelation, another text whose meaning has completely changed throughout the ages, and I immediately thought of Gulliver's Travels. What was originally supposed to be a book that was designed to provided comfort to persecuted Christians in Asia-minor has suddenly become, in some circles, a detailed description of the end of the Earth.
However, I'm not writing about the book of Revelation, I'm writing about Gulliver's Travels, so I will try to remain focused on the task at hand. The problem with this book is that there is so much in it that simply writing a review on Goodreads likes cannot do it justice, so I have decided that it will go onto my 'read again at sometime and write a detailed blog post' pile (though the only other book currently on that pile is Plato's Symposium). Anyway, what I will attempt to do is look at each of his journeys individually and make some comments therein.
Before I do that though I probably should say a couple of things about the book as a whole. Okay, it is not the first travel narrative around (the Odyssey pre-dates it by a long shot, and Robinson Crusoe was also written tad earlier – a book that Swift does draw upon in parts), however it does seem be one of those books that has influenced the science-fiction/fantasy genre since. Here we have a traveller heading off into the unknown and discovering societies that are completely alien to our own. At the time much of the world was still unexplored, so Swift creates these undiscovered societies that exist in the unknown corners (most of them being islands in the uncharted ocean). Parts of it even reminded me of Star Trek, where we have the crew of the Enterprise heading off to alien planets and discovering many and varied civilisations thereupon.
Another that I picked up as I was reading some of the commentaries was how it stands apart from Robinson Crusoe. In Dafoe's book we have a story of the individual overcoming his struggles to make a life for himself. However it is suggested that Gulliver is different in that Swift is suggesting that it is not the individual but societies that count. However, as we shall see, none of these societies is worthy to be called some sort of Utopia. Even the Houynhnhnms have a dark side about them. The other thing we see is the slow descent of Gulliver into madness. At first he decides to head off to sea for an adventure, particularly since his business in London failed, however after he returns every time he immediately wants to head off again. In fact it seems as if the time he remains in England becomes ever shorter. When he returns the final time, after being exiled by the Houynhnhms, he becomes a recluse and spends the rest of his life talking to horses.
This descent is also mimicked by the way he lands up in each of these lands. The first time it is due to a freak storm, the second time he is abandoned, the third time he is attacked by pirates, and the forth time his crew mutinies (which is probably not surprising since the crew that he ended up collecting were probably the last people you would want as the crew of your boat).
This is the first realm, and the most well known since most of the productions use this section of the book. Lilliput is probably the closest realm to that of England, and in fact each of the characters represent one of the major figures in English political life at the time. They even have the land of Blefuscu, which is a representation of France. In a way the realm, and in particular the politics, of Lilliput is nothing short of farcical. Swift does not hold back in his criticism of the landscape in which he lives. In a way it is no difference than the world we live in today, and many of us have little respect for our politicians, seeing them as nothing more than a bunch of corrupt clowns.
The people of Lilliput and Blefuscu are at war, and the reason behind the war is one of the most absurd reasons around – they both hold different interpretations of a holy book. While we might laugh at the fact that the Lilliputians and the Belfuscians fight over how an egg should be opened, this is sadly what we see with religion today. Everybody has their own interpretation, and sadly there are people who are willing to go to war with each other over their interpretation. The problem with religion is that followers generally resort to a higher power to support their beliefs, and because it is such a fundamental part of their lives, to challenge such a deeply held belief can cause some quite adverse reactions. It is sort of like confronting somebody on meth – the drug causes them to create this reality that is not necessarily true, and when that reality is challenged, the result can be incredibly violent. Sometimes I wander whether many Christians, especially the violent ones, remember Jesus' saying about turning the other cheek.
Swift also seems to have a problem with imperialism. When the Belfuscians launch an invasion of Lilliput, Gulliver heads out, grabs all of their boats, and brings then to shore, effectively castrating them in one swoop. Upon seeing victory, the Emperor of Lilliput immediately wants to subjugate the Belfuscians, however Gulliver steps in and forbids it. Sure, he may have saved the Lilliputians, however occupying their land is not going to solve any of their problems – it's only going to make it worse. As such the emperor is not happy and finds Gulliver guilty of treason – it seems that kings and emperors are just as blind when it comes to war and politics.
One of the things that you will notice about Gullivers travels is that it is a story of contrasts – in fact it is a story of opposites. In Lilliput Gulliver is the big man around town. His towering presence dominates the scene - to the point where he is recruited as a weapon of war. Further, he is uncontrollable by the Lilliputians. The opposite is the case when it comes of Brobdingnag. Here he is tiny. In fact the entire situation has been reversed to where he is the size that the Lilliputians were to him. Also the political situation differs as well – in Brobdingnag there is no political maneuvering, and in fact the king and queen are seen as innocent rulers (innocent in that they have no understanding of the political world – and neither do their subjects).
Being tiny Gulliver is an object of curiosity, and in fact he spends time as being little more than a carnival attraction. The roles have been completely reversed. In Lilliput he was the big man, and even though he couldn't necessarily change the ideas of the Lilliputians, he did have an influence. Now this has all been taken away from him and in effect he is powerless. Sure, he does tell the queen about his homeland, however this is more quaint curiosity than anything else. Furthermore he is at the mercy of the elements, as is seen when he is attacked by a giant rat, and his food is covered with insect slime.
Beauty is another thing that is challenged in this section. This is shown in the scene where he sees the two naked women. While those of us who are normal size may be enticed by such an encounter, to somebody of Gulliver's size all he can see are the blemishes. In fact they are so noticeable he is left horrified. The section also works to humble Gulliver, since after visiting the Lilliputians he has trouble adjusting back in England to the fact that he is the same size as everybody else, where as this idea of being the big man is suddenly taken away from him. In a way he goes from being the big fish in the little pond to the little fish in the big pond.
Here we come to see Swift's dislike of the modern scientific community. Laputa is a flying city that dominates its regions by flying over and dropping rocks upon them. It seems that two centuries before the Wright Brothers took to the sky Gulliver was speculating on the power of air superiority. Granted, air superiority isn't all that it is made out to be (the Americans seem to be having a lot of trouble bombing ISIS out of existence, and despite having complete control of the air, Hitler was not able to capture Stalingrad), but here Swift is giving a demonstration of its possibilities.
However, it is not the air superiority that he is exploring, but how he views the ridiculousness of scientific enquiry. This is brought out clearly with the guy who has been charged with extracting sunlight from cucumber and the amount of time it would take to actually get any benefit out of it. It sort of reminded me of my method of turning lead into gold through the use of a nuclear reactor.
Swift really didn't like the scientific movement, one that was taking England by storm at the time. These days he would probably fall into the category of the Creation Scientist, the one who is mocked at by the scientific community for their dogmatic belief that humanity was created from clay (though I could argue that that is what evolution is suggesting anyway: it is only giving us a process of how it could have come about). However, scientific research was limited to the upper classes, while many of the middle of lower classes were still satisfied with the explanations given to them by the church.
The thing with the Laputians is that they consider themselves to be wise but through their actions they show themselves to be foolish. In fact as he wanders through their university he cannot help but see some of the stupid experiments that are going on, such as the attempt to mix paints simply through the use of smell (the people doing the research were blind). Mind you, back in those days the scientific movement had come out of what had originally been considered magic – Isaac Newton had a fascination with Alchemy. My belief is that because there was a perception that the scientific movement would challenge the authenticity of the Bible (or one group's interpretation of the Bible) they felt that they needed to relegate it to the realm of the dark arts.
The land of the Houyhnhnms
While we had a bunch of idiots running around in Laputa, in this place we have a form of idyllic utopia. The Houyhnhnms are actually evolved horses who live in what is effectively an idyllic society. They are wise in their own ways in that they are peaceful and have no understanding of war. One section of this part, were Gulliver is telling them about war, reminded me of a number of other stories where a visitor from an alien planet comes to Earth and is appalled at the fact that we insist on running around and killing each other.
However, the Houyhnhnms are not a perfect race since they subjugate the humans of the region, whom they refer to as yahoos. In fact this is where the term entered the English language (these these days when we hear about Yahoos we automatically think of that internet company have ended up becoming second best to Google). The Yahoos are an uncivilised and barbaric lot, and in a way it seems that the Houyhnhnms want to keep them that way because as long as they remain uneducated they don't pose all that much of a threat.
Gulliver seems to find himself at home here because these creatures live out what was speculated as far back as Plato. We have a communal society that lives at peace, and it is that community that gives them strength. However they are an incredibly racist lot because despite Gulliver being enthralled by their way of life, to them he is nothing more than a sophisticated Yahoo.
Notes are private!
Aug 30, 2015
Sep 09, 2015
Aug 30, 2015
Feb 1994
liked it
A peek behind the curtain of the CIA
13 June 2014
For a bit I was wondering where I managed to get my hands on this book because I do remember a friend A peek behind the curtain of the CIA
13 June 2014
For a bit I was wondering where I managed to get my hands on this book because I do remember a friend of mine, ages ago, telling me how he had read this book and that he had found it really interesting, and then proceeded to tell me everything that he had discovered, as if he had been given a peek behind the curtain of one of the world's most secretive spy agencies. Then I remembered that my friend's brother loved spy and detective fiction, but was giving away all of his books, and this happened to be among them, so I grabbed it. As I look over at the stack of books on my shelf I notice that there are some other (obscure) books that I had also grabbed that day which have since been relegated to the bottom of my pile, and have pretty much remained there (such as The Carlos Complex and By Way of Deception).
Anyway, unlike the other books, I did end up reading this book (and this commentary is a dead giveaway because I doubt I would be writing about it if I hadn't read it, though I have been tempted to write about books that I haven't read, such as books written by Ayn Rand, though I end up going and doing better things with my time, such as writing commentaries on books about the CIA), and I did actually find it quite interesting, though I would hardly call the CIA 'one of the world's most secret organisations'. I reason that I say that is because they let somebody write a book about what goes on in the CIA. In fact I have this theory that the only job that the CIA has is to take the fall for the stuff ups of all of the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and there are a plethora (though I won't go into details with regards to them) of them. To me, the role of the CIA is as the umbrella organisation, though we should note that the CIA isn't actually allowed to operate on American soil (or I should say it is not supposed to operate on American soil) – there are other agencies for that.
Mind you, this book was written sometime prior to the 'bad' intelligence that led to the kerfuffle that turned out to be the Iraq War. Kessler is writing at a time when the CIA had worked to regain credibility after a series of scandals that had rocked the agency, and the presidency, in the early 70s. He also goes into details about its origin (the organisation was only formed after World War II) as well as the way that it is structured. It is interesting to note that the term 'agent' actually refers to a third party contractor – namely somebody who is paid by the CIA to obtain information, but doesn't actually work for them. Generally they are foreign nationals. The actual spies are referred to as operatives.
In the end, for all that this book is worth, it is incredibly dated, due to the numerous scandals that have been rocking the agency over the last fifteen years, beginning with the faulty intelligence that was used to justify a war against Iraq (and the allegations that they were forced to manufacture this intelligence), the Valarie Plame affair (though that had more to do with the administration as opposed to the agency), and of course the revelations that the agencies have been gathering information on us. It is still an interesting read, though I would not consider that we are being given any special information, namely because if it has made it into this book, then it has been declassified. If you want classified information, there are other places you can go. ...more
Notes are private!
Aug 28, 2006
Sep 03, 2006
Jun 13, 2014
it was amazing
Fear and fundamentalist dogma
14 November 2013
Many people debate which play would be considered to be the greatest play written by an American and to Fear and fundamentalist dogma
14 November 2013
Many people debate which play would be considered to be the greatest play written by an American and to be honest this play comes pretty close. However, I am not a really big fan of American Literature (in the same way that I am not a really big fan of Australian Literature). I think it would be stretching it a bit to refer to American and Australian Literature as being colonial because I have a feeling that that form of literature is limited to British colonies that had not sufficiently created an identity for themselves, as opposed to Australia and America which in the mid to late 19th century certainly had their own identity (even though at that time Australia was still referred to as 'The Colony').
This play is set during the Salem witch trials that occurred during the early colonial period of the United States (or its precursor) and is a play about what happens when fear takes hold of us to a point that we begin to suspect innocent people of being guilty of committing hideous crimes. This is the main theme that Miller was exploring because at the time of its writing the United States was going through a period known as Macarthyism, a time where pretty much anybody and everybody could be accused of being a communist spy and found guilty on the flimsiest of evidence. In a way Joseph McCarthy's actions were very similar to the actions of the people that were behind the Salem witch trials.
Some people seemed to be surprised that the events that occurred in this play were real events (and have even produced links to the Wikipedia article). Personally, I am not surprised that such events occurred (and since I have been a student of American history, I had heard of that particular period). The thing is that the setting and the culture of the colony would no doubt eventually give rise to such hysteria. Witch trials had been occurring in Europe for well over three hundred years (I cannot be accurate on the dates since I am currently sitting in a plane at 30,000 feet, and while this plane does have internet access, my computer is not set up to access it, and even if it was, I suspect that it would be hideously expensive, so I am happy to go without).
What we had in Salem was a Puritan colony that pretty much existed at the edge of Western Civilisation. To the colonists at the time the original inhabitants of the land were little more than pagan devil worshippers and as such there was no doubt a fear that their haven of puritanical Christianity was in danger of being influenced by the practices of these inhabitants. As such, they did their best to keep themselves pure (as they had originally fled Europe due to being persecuted for practising their own form of religion). In a way, the Puritans were an early form of fundamentalist, though I do not actually believe that there is such as thing as an early fundamentalist because fundamentalists tend to be closed minded in their thinking and that easily crosses the boundaries of sects, denominations, and religions.
Further, it is not necessary that it is a primitive reaction and ignorant understanding of the world because, as Miller subtly points out in writing this play when he did, the exact same thing was occurring in the United States at that time. Further, I have even been to churches where there is an intense fear of the outside world, and that we should only go out and interact with the outside world to bring people into the church, and that any prolonged contact with the outside world has the potential to undermine a person's faith. There is also the question of belief: any belief that moves away from a rigid doctrine is considered heresy and certain actions are banned (such as dancing) because such behaviour has the potential to damn the soul. As such, we come upon the sects who are referred to as 'fun-nazi's' because any form of fun opens us up to sin, and by opening ourselves up to sin opens ourselves up to damnation.
It is not just the Islamic world that is being threatened with the scourge of fundamentalism. Yes, it is true, that there are sects within Islam that consider any deviation from their strict domga to be heretical and members of these sects will kill anybody who steps outside of that doctrine. Further, there are countries were it is illegal to hold any other religion than the religion that is sanctioned by the state. However, while in the Western World we have embraced freedom of religion (which includes the freedom to have no religion whatsoever – if that is actually possible) there are those who rile against it and seek to undermine the freedom that many of us have fought for. There are those who argue that America (and Australia) were originally established as Christian nations and that the reason that we are facing the problems that we are now is because we have wondered from that heritage.
As if we did not face problems when a majority of the people still went to church. If that were the case there would never have been economic depressions, wars, diseases, and all other manner of disasters. I personally am opposed to any form of theocratic state because these states will no doubt end up looking like the community that we see with The Crucible. In a way The Crucible serves as a warning to us, as well as to the people at the time that it was written, and that is that any form of fundamentalism is a bad thing, whether it be religious fundamentalism as in the world of the Crucible, or economic fundamentalism, as we see assaulting us today, and that fundamentalism tends to create the idea of a devil, or a great evil, in an opposing force to make it seem much worse than it really is. To the people of Salem it was the original inhabitants of the land, to the people of the 1950s it was the communists, and today, in modern Australia, the Labor Party takes that role. ...more
Notes are private!
Nov 10, 2013
Nov 13, 2013
Nov 10, 2013
liked it
A criticism of neutrality
7 November 2013
Everytime I finish this rather short letter I get caught up in other things meaning that my commentary on the A criticism of neutrality
7 November 2013
Everytime I finish this rather short letter I get caught up in other things meaning that my commentary on the letter gets pushed to the side and as such by the time that I get around to writing about it (such as now) I have basically forgotten much of what was said it in (though I do have an idea of what it is about). However, I am not going to reread it just so I can write a better review, I am simply going to sit down (or lie down in my bed with my laptop on my lap would be a better description of my position at this time) and simply write about what I can remember.
Basically it was written (or apparently written) while Saint-Exupery was in New York during World War II as an exile from France and was writing to a Jewish friend of his who was still in France and in hiding (which is not surprising for a Jew living in occupied France at the time). However I believe that 1944 was the date of publication of the letter as opposed to the date that it was written, namely because he was referring to events that had occurred a lot earlier, and one of the most vivid descriptions that stand out in this letter was his description of Lisbon during the war.
Basically the Iberian peninsula was considered neutral territory during the war, namely because, thanks to Hitler's assistance, Franco had won the Spanish Civil War and Portugal, being pretty much surrounded by Spain, had learnt to play ball. As such, as one can see from the description that Saint-Exupery puts in the book, the people of Lisbon, and Portugal, were living in some imaginary world where life was going on as normal and that the war was far away.
I suspect that this sense of isolation was not so much directed at the Lisbonites but rather at the Americans, though by the date of publication, the United States had entered the war on the side of the Allies and quite possibly had already made a beach head at Normady and were preparing for an assault on the Fatherland. However, if the date of authorship is actually earlier, maybe he was using the situation in Portugal as a criticism of the neutrality of the United States. It is interesting to note that in the lead up to the war the United States was actually playing both sides. They were supplying both the Nazi's and the British (and Fanta actually came about because they wanted a soft drink to sell to the Germans because they could not sell the Coca-Cola).
In a way, the nature of Germany at the time was quite similar to the nature of the American people, which is probably why they did not want to enter the war. In a way they supported the beliefs of Nazi Germany, but had become a traditional ally of Britain, and in turn the French. However, because they did not want to make a stand against the ideals of Nazi Germany, the best thing they could do was to remain out of the war (the whole idea of having one bloody war in the century, and not wanting to get tangled up in European affairs is probably a cover to hide over the fact that elements of the United States actually agreed with the white supremacist notions of the Nazi party).
If one were to argue against that all I need to do is to simply point to the treatment of not just the African Americans, but also other nationalities such as the Indians and the Mexicans. Also, Hitler's corporate agenda was quite in line with America's corporate agenda. As one American President (I can't remember which, but he was president during the Twenties) said 'the business of the United States is business (which reeks of Abbott's statement about Australia being open for business, which suggests that he may want to start selling off our assets at fire-sale prices, with does not actually make good business sense).
In a way I suspect that this letter is actually a wake up call to the neutral states, and the nature of what the Nazi regime means. He points to an incident that he was involved in with some thugs known as the secret police where he was hassled simply for standing around, and because he couldn't actually prove that he was a journalist, he was hassled even more.
In a way it brings to mind some of the Christian leaders who jump up and down screaming persecution when in reality we may be laughed at, but we are not persecuted. My belief is that if real persecution has come about it is because we have lived in a dream world and have done nothing to stand up to the real persecution that is going on around us. Basically, if one sector of society is being persecuted (such as homosexuals) and we are doing nothing about this persecution, then one by one the minorities are going to be pushed out of the way, and once they are out of the way, we suddenly discover that we are in the minority, and because we are in the minority, we suddenly find that we are facing the brunt of the persecution and there is nobody around to stand up for us. ...more
Notes are private!
Oct 29, 2013
Nov 05, 2013
Oct 29, 2013
Mass Market Paperback
Jan 01, 2004
liked it
Political and economic attacks on the middle and lower classes
7 September 2013
Well, it is September 7th which means that it is the Australian Federal Political and economic attacks on the middle and lower classes
7 September 2013
Well, it is September 7th which means that it is the Australian Federal Election, and it is also the last day that I have to put up with the internet bombarding me with all of this political advertising. I remember that only a few years ago I could flee to the internet to escape the relentless bombardment of political advertising that dominated our televisions during the election campaigns but now, thanks to Barak Obama (and to a limited extent, Kevin Rudd) this has all changed. Due to the success of both parties in moving election campaigns online there is now nowhere you can escape the relentless bombardment of soundbites trying to convince you why you should not vote for the other guy.
I sometimes wonder if this is what political campaigning has become. Okay, granted, politicians lie, they always have and they always will. The only reason that they want the job is because of the power, prestige, and money that comes with the position. However the real question is whether they actually give a shit about the country that they are running, and most people simply say that they don't. This was the case in point with George W Bush. In a way he needed the votes to get himself elected, but the only America that he seemed to really care about was the America that was inhabited by the wealthy one percent. It is not that this has changed all that much under Obama, but at least he is trying to move the country in a new direction.
I guess the reason that I have become so disenchanted with politics is that the right wing parties seem to believe that they are the only party who are capable of managing the economy and running the country. However, managing a country and managing one's personal finances are two completely different things. It is okay to cut away non-essentials when managing your own house hold budget, but when it comes to managing a country, things change dramatically because the definition of non-essenstials change. Okay, granted, many of the right wingers seem to believe that they should not be paying for something that they are not using, such as public schools. However, the cost of a decent public education has become so prohibitive that I am actually loathe to have children because I cannot simply afford to give them a decent lifestyle.
The problem with the whole user pays idealism is that it is first of all simply plain selfish. While the top 1% enjoy the benefits of living in an advanced democracy, the rest have to scrounge money together to simply make ends meet, and that is not counting the fact that many of us end up going into debt to simply make those ends meet. In my time I have seen university education go from being free to being prohibitive. In fact, there are a lot of people at my work that have dropped out of university and started working simply because they cannot afford to go to university. Then there are people like me who are saddled with a HECS debt but am not earning anywhere near enough money that justifies the two degrees I have. Okay, I consider the HECS debt to be a claytons debt, that is a debt that is not really a debt. However, that may change with the new government (who I can forsee attacking the lower classes to support their upper class friends). In a way, with the cuts to public education, and to university, those of us in the lower classes are not only being denied education, and good quality education at that, but also the ability to earn a decent income. ...more
Notes are private!
not set
Sep 02, 2005
Sep 06, 2013
Aug 28, 2007
really liked it
Modern Mercenaries
13 September 2013
Based on what I have seen on Goodreads maybe I should have read Corporate Warriors instead of this book because pe Modern Mercenaries
13 September 2013
Based on what I have seen on Goodreads maybe I should have read Corporate Warriors instead of this book because people have described that book as 'the quintessential book on the private security industry' but the reason I ended up getting this book was because the title caught my attention when I was perusing Amazon and decided to place an order. In a nutshell it is an interesting book that explores the aspects of the private security industry that has arisen since the Iraq War but I found that Pelton seemed to spend a lot of time simply telling stories and would only then spend a small amount of time outlining the pros and cons of this relatively new industry. Not all of his stories were bad, though most of the time he seemed to just waffle.
Now, the idea of private security is nothing new because there have been firms providing security for as long as I have known, but in an advanced democracy these firms (at least here in Australia) tend to be kept on a very short leash. As a private security contractor in Australia you simply cannot be trigger happy. For instance, while a bouncer at a night club (and they generally work on a contractual basis, though the proper term for them is a crowd controller) can break up fights and eject people, they have to do it in a way that they cannot open themselves up for prosecution or civil penalties (such as a lawsuit).
What changed with the Iraq War was that these firms began to operate in overseas jurisdictions with limited oversight. At this stage the American Army was not actually outsourcing the combat aspects of the assignment, but rather they were outsourcing security for dignitaries such as the UN and the pro-consul Paul Bremer. However, in a place that was as chaotic as Iraq, the normal restraint that can be shown in a Western Democracy would probably end up getting you killed. The concern is that there is limited oversight over their actions and even if they do get involved in a fire fight that they start, they can easily vanish with no repercussions.
The US army had been outsourcing operations for quite a while, and an economic way that is understandable. It is better to outsource the minor details of the army such as catering, maintenance, and even laundry services because it means you do not need to keep full time staff on the payroll. You only pay what you use. This is the same with security details because it frees up the troops for combat orientated roles and also, theoretically, keeps costs down. While they still have mess halls, I have seen films of the bases in Iraq where there are Pizza Huts and Subways on base which, I must admit, does offer better variety than the simple mess hall.
There are problems with that though, as Pelton points out. For instance, the idea of cost plus (being the cost of providing the service plus profit) may at first seem cost effective, but these costs can quickly spiral out of control. There is one incidence where there were at least four layers of cost plus contracts (that is the initial contract which is sub-contracted to another company who then sub-contracts to another company and so forth). This also applies to other areas such as cantering because the company that won the contract (on a no bid basis) then goes and sub-contracts out to another. Further, because corporations operate purely on a profit motive, and because the average soldier does not get a choice as to the provider the soldier wishes to use, there is no incentive to provide a quality product. If the company doing the laundry service does a rubbish job then the soldier is stuck with that. I have actually heard that soldiers were not allowed to wash their own clothes but had to use the contractor who charged the American government an inordinate price for the service.
Many of us think of private security contractors as earning huge amounts of money and living a high lifestyle, however Pelton blows that myth to smithereens. The people making the money are those that sit at the top of the food chain, that is the executives. While the contractor may be earning $600.00 a day, this is not steady income and there is no guarantee that their contract will be renewed after the next stint. Then there is the threat of injury and/or death, separation from their families, and the fact that their skills are not really transferable. Once they are back home the best they can get is a minimum wage security job, and even then only if they are physically capable. It is highly unlikely that they would be offered insurance, so the only thing that their families have to rely on in case of death is a small amount given by the US government (about $65000.00).
Naomi Klein mentioned in her book 'Disaster Capitalism' that the next bubble would the the private security bubble. I thought she was talking about Homeland Security but I suspect that she was talking about this industry. From what I gathered there are a lot of companies and once the war in Iraq is over (which I believe it technically is) there is going to be little to no work for these companies. I suspect that many of them have already folded, that is if they were not wound up beforehand and the executives made off with a tidy profit. However, many of these companies aren't listed on the stock exchange (Blackwater isn't) so I suspect most of the operators knew that this was only going to be a short term venture. By the way, Eric Prince, founder of Blackwater, as since left the company and the company has also changed its name twice so is no longer known as Blackwater.
The last chapter was particularly interesting because it was about the failed coup attempt in Equitorial Guinea that involved the son of Magaret Thatcher. I remembered that clearly because it involved the son of Margaret Thatcher. What I thought was odd was that Pelton was writing as if this coup was something new and something that had arisen from the Iraq War. In reality it is not. It was not so much like Executive Outcomes, a South African security firm that would be hired by African dictators to put down rebel forces, but rather a bunch of out of work special forces operatives that where brought together to get rid of a dictator and steal Equatorial Guinea's oil resources. Further, I don't actually think that it is all that ironic that they got caught in Zimbabwe. It is not that Mugabe would have particularly been concerned about some coup plotters, but what would have concerned him would have been the fact that the people pulling the strings behind the coup were all white. Okay, it all came about by accident, but for a guy that sought to evict all of the white farmers from Zimbabwe I highly doubt he would have turned a blind eye where a coup against an African government was being orchestrated by white power brokers. ...more
Notes are private!
Sep 06, 2013
Sep 13, 2013
Sep 06, 2013
Jun 19, 2007
Jun 24, 2008
really liked it
A journey into America's working class
19 June 2013
Isn't it funny that one day you wake up and you discover that you have become that which you hate. A journey into America's working class
19 June 2013
Isn't it funny that one day you wake up and you discover that you have become that which you hate. I remember a friend of mine saying that to me once. He used to be a member of the English working class and after two years returning to school he had become the wine sipping type of person that he used to look down on back in the motherland. The same feeling came across me as I read this book simply because where most of the books that offer a critical view of the American political system take a top down approach, Bageant, who has his roots in the American working class, takes a look at it from the bottom up, namely from the view of your average American working class town (or city as he now calls it).
The reason that I have commented on how I have become that which I have hated is because of what Bageant describes as the working class view of middle class liberal types, and that is as a bunch of late sipping intellectuals that really do not understand what a hard days work is really like, and in a way that is true. I am currently sitting outside at a table in a cafe on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne, not so much drinking a late (because I cannot drink excessive amounts of milk), but I am drinking the next best thing and that is a long black (with a side of milk). I have associated with members of the Australian Left in the past, and many of them seem to be university educated individuals that generally want more free time, more money, and less work.
The nature of the political right and left in Australia is somewhat different to that in the United States because our political parties tend to be more inclined to the left, though right enough to remain relevant to the Americans. Mind you, the working class here in Australia is also different because they are paid quite well, and sitting near me in this cafe are a bunch of construction workers who are also drinking lates. However they are the rough and tumble loud mouthed members of the working class who probably only use the internet to fuel their porn addiction.
I can appreciate what Bagaent is saying here because even though the working class here in Australia is getting nowhere near as screwed as they are in the United States (you are more likely to get screwed if you work in a office in Australia than if you work in a manufacturing plant, not that there are many manufacturing plants left, and even then many of the office jobs are getting off shored as well). We do have better healthcare here in Australia as well as education, even though our government is attempting to gut that as well.
This is one of the main points that Bageant makes here and that is the importance of education. One of the reasons that the working class in the United States is functionally illiterate (or worse) is because of the quality of education, but then again in some parts of Australia the public school system is little more than government funded day care. The children aren't being taught, and they aren't learning. It is not that they aren't learning, but they aren't learning to think. Universities are being priced out of the hands of the working class, which adds another layer of ignorance to the situation. Further, the only thing that many of us learn comes out of the idiot box, and we end up being swayed by the fine sounding words that the next motivational speaker who comes along says.
Mind you, here in Australia Christians bemoan the state of our post-Christian society, but Christianity in Australia is nowhere near what it is like in America. Australians generally don't go to church, and generally don't buy the rubbish that comes out of many of the pulpits. In a way the fundamentalist Christians in the United States seem to make the same claim about their country though from what I gather from what Bagaent has to say Christianity in America is alive and well, it is just that we don't see all that much of it from where we are sitting. Here in Australia most of what we see coming out of America tends to come out of Hollywood, and I would hardly call the Hollywood culture a true reflection of American culture, not if what Bagaent says is true. We mostly get a glimpse of American life as it appears in the cities, and while the city life in Australia may reflect that, that is not necessarily true in the United States. The thing about Australia is that the bulk of our population is crammed into the cities that dot our shores, and even then, a bulk of that population is located on the Eastern Seaboard (which includes Melbourne, despite Melbourne being on the South Coast).
However, just because the Australian people congregate in the cities does not necessarily mean that Australians are a more liberal lot (assuming that the liberals tend to congregate in the cites, which seems to be the case in the United States). While I still argue that Adelaide is a small town, in reality it is a city, however it does have a small town mind set. That is probably the main reason why I wanted to get out of there. The thing with small towns in Australia is that there are only two things to do: drink beer and play football – that pretty much defines Adelaide. The towns in Australia, like the United States, tend to also have a much more conservative view (which is probably a good thing that I did not move out to Dubbo), and that is the case with Adelaide. As I said, Adelaide is a city with a small town mindset, and that mindset tends to be very conservative (as well as very narrow minded). There are Adelaidians that cannot imagine why anybody would not want to live in Adelaide, and I was rebuked once for saying that I hated Adelaide (and I still do, which is why I do not want to go back). In a sense, it was that mindset, and that conservative streak, that made me want to leave and come over to Melbourne (which I finally managed to do after twenty years of trying).
However, my rant about Adelaide reflects an important point with regards to this book. Bageant says that one of the problems with the left in the United States is that the left, like me, do not want to have anything to do with people holding the conservative mindset. From Bageant's descriptions, the people of Adelaide are actually more intelligent than the people that he describes in rural America in that when they vote for the conservatives (despite the fact that South Australia has had a Labor government for almost twelve years) they do so because they have that upper crust attitude. The people of Adelaide (that is the people that do not live in the northern suburbs who believe that if you read a book in a pub then you must be homosexual) do have a gentrified air about them. That was why a Queenslander that I lived with for a while ended up leaving. What Bageant was suggesting though was that the left seems to think that they are better than these people, and that the country hicks (as I put them) are the problem and must be dealt with as opposed to a group that actually needs somebody to step out and help them. If you read a lot of leftist literature (which I have done) they seem to think that the problem is at the top, and attempt to attack the top thinking that that is the way to deal with them, as opposed to courting the base (which, despite George Bush's joke about the billionaires being his base, is in reality the American working class) and doing something to solve their problems. ...more
Notes are private!
Jun 13, 2013
Jun 18, 2013
Jun 13, 2013
Feb 02, 2006
really liked it
The story of a modern day slave-master
2 May 2013
It is a little ironic that I am sitting in McDonalds, the flagship of corporate America, writing a co The story of a modern day slave-master
2 May 2013
It is a little ironic that I am sitting in McDonalds, the flagship of corporate America, writing a commentary on a book about the evils of corporate America. Maybe that is why they wouldn't let me onto their free wi-fi. Anyway, I have got internet (thankyou Telstra) simply by turning my mobile phone (or is it a smart phone) into a modem, and simply connect my laptop to it (or turn it into a wi-fi hotspot, though I don't like doing that in a public place). Anyway, I am just killing some time in the city before I jump on the Airport bus to fly off to Sydney (only for a night though).
Anyway, this book is about debt, but not able the type of debt that we find ourselves shackled to, though the two types of debt are basically the same. Okay, not all debt is equal, and many companies (in fact all of them) tend to go into debt to further their operations. However, that form of debt is what I call investment debt, or the more technical term, gearing. However, I do at times wonder how it is that companies really make a profit when there is a huge amount of debt on their books. Is that profit really profit or is it only illusionary? I guess that was the question that came out of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 where companies that were booking massive profits on top of crippling debt only to have the whole house of cards come crashing down.
However, this book is not about corporate debt either, it is about sovereign debt, and not any form of sovereign debt, but debt that is thrust upon third world countries. The nature of the economic hitman that Perkins is confessing about is that he goes into these countries and offers loans to these countries for the purpose of development, however due to the nature of the debt (and the governments as well) the money actually does not go to development, and what ends up happening is that the country is suddenly shackled under immense debt that it cannot pay back and any money that the country does make goes to servicing the debt. As such the bond holders then move in on the country and begin to carve up whatever resources that they can get their hands on, including, but not limited to, water.
This happened in Bolivia, where the bond holders pretty much took ownership of all of the country's water, including that which fell out of the sky. As such, nobody could actually collect water unless they paid the bond holders for the privilege of collecting the water. Mind you it backfired when the population of Bolivia took to the streets and forced the bond holders to back down. However, this is not the case in every country that is out there, and in fact the people who end up servicing the debt is generally not the government, but the population through prohibitive taxes.
In a way it is the means of prevent developing countries from actually developing – keep them in debt and by keeping them in debt they cannot ever be in a position to challenge the powers that be. This is nothing new because in times past some governments, such as the British and the Americans, were known as creditor nations and they would use their clout as creditor nations to keep other, debtor, nations under their thumbs. However things have changed and the countries that used to be creditor nations no longer are. In fact there is probably only one creditor nation out there now, and that is China (and maybe Russia, as well as parts of the Middle East).
The world has changed a lot since the era of the British Empire because back then if corporations existed they tended to be an extension of the government. Look, in places like China and Russia they still are (and you could also argue that the Russian Mafia is an extension of the Russian Government), however outside these states the main creditors are no longer governments but private corporations. In fact, you will probably discover that much of the American debt is actually in the hands of the corporations. No longer are corporations the extension of the government, but the government (at least in America) has become an extension of the corporations (not that there is anything new about that, since Butler Smedley openly admitted that many of the wars that he fought in were primarily for American Corporate interests). ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 10, 2004
Apr 19, 2007
May 02, 2013
Jan 01, 1811
Mar 09, 2010
really liked it
An ode to Slaughtered Workers
16 April 2013
This poem was written after what was known as the Peterloo Massacre which occurred in Manchester in 1819. I An ode to Slaughtered Workers
16 April 2013
This poem was written after what was known as the Peterloo Massacre which occurred in Manchester in 1819. It was four years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars and England had fallen into recession, and the north of the country had been hit particularly hard. In response to this the working class began to stage a series of protests with culminated in Peterloo, and the response to these protests was a cavalry charged by the British army which left 15 dead and 700 wounded.
Shelley writes in a rather apocalyptic style in his response to the massacre and uses the imagery of the four horsemen of the book of Revelation, though he actually names three of the horsemen, with the forth horseman being named Anarchy. I suspected that this forth horseman related to the English government. I also suspect that it suggests that where the government is concerned there is no law that binds them and as such the country lives in a state of anarchy. While there is law that restricts the actions of those who live under it, the higher one goes, the less the law imposes restrictions on them. Mind you, the cavalrymen would have been just as much under the law as the people whom they charged.
This is not the only text in which Shelley explores the theme of the lawlessness of the government as he also explores it in The Cenci, where the antagonist rapes his daughter and gets away with it, but when the daughter and her brothers then seek revenge against him for his crime they are captured, tried, and executed for their participation in the deed. With regards to the Peterloo Massacre it is clear that the cavalry may have, on one hand, been attempting to keep the peace, but more likely than not it was acting to protect the interests of the masters of the land.
What Shelley laments a lot during his writing is the failure of the French revolution. Granted, Shelley was only a child at the height of the revolution, and would have entered his adult life during the reign of Napoleon, however it is not so much the failure of the revolution that is important, it is the ideas that it generated. Once the idea of freedom for the masses came to the fore in France, it began to filter throughout Europe, and even across the channel to England. In 1795 England was practically on the verge of revolution herself.
One particular line in the poem demonstrates the lawlessness of the government when Anarchy says 'I am God, King, and Law' indicating that all law stems from the government, but with government being Anarchy, there is no law because something cannot come out of nothing. To Shelley the government is illegitimate, and as such the law it creates is also illegitimate because there is nothing, other than brute force, that gives it legitimacy. Being an atheist himself, Shelley no doubt completely rejects the divine right of Kings. ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 16, 2013
Apr 16, 2013
Apr 16, 2013
Sep 28, 1988
Feb 29, 2000
liked it
Shelly bemoans the failure of the revolution
9 April 2013
It seems that poor Percy Shelley had problems upsetting people with his poems because when he Shelly bemoans the failure of the revolution
9 April 2013
It seems that poor Percy Shelley had problems upsetting people with his poems because when he went to publish Laon and Cyntha in its original form the publishers refused to accept it and told him to pretty much rewrite it. Well, that is not surprising coming from publishers, particularly when one is writing something that is overtly political and, as in Shelley's case, anti-religious. As such he did rewrite it, titling it the Revolt of Islam despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Islam, expect in an allegorical sense.
In his introduction Shelley comments on literary critics and suggests that he is not writing this poem to please the literary critics since in doing so it can chain one's ability to write in the way that one really wishes to write. I sometimes wonder how many people write (whether it be books or movies) these days to simply warm up to the literary critic. In a sense the critic can effectively make or break a movie (or a book) and it is surprising how many people will actually pay attention to a critic. I must admit that I do, and I guess part of it has to do with there being so many books out there and not enough time to read all of them. I also guess that is why a website like Goodreads is also good because I can find out what a book is like (such as 50 Shades of Grey or Eat, Pray, Love) without having to waste my time actually reading it.
As for the poem, well it seems that despite his ranting about how he refuses to chain himself to the whims of the critic, he was forced to change his poem, but I suspect it has more to do with his publishers than the critics. Mind you, it is not as if Shelley really had to scrape money together to buy bread since it appears that he was independently wealthy, though I suspect that most of the writers (and composers) in those days generally were financially sufficient. It would have something to do with the fact that only the middle and upper classes who tended to be literate. It is only from the mid-nineteenth century that we begin to see the lower classes becoming literate as well (though I have been to places where there is a high level of illiteracy – hold it, that could be Australia, couldn't it?).
Anyway, this poem is about revolution, and in a sense it a dirge about the failure of the French Revolution. The date of composition is pretty much after the Congress of Vienna which decided on how to move forward after the wholesale destruction of the Napoleonic Wars. I sort of wonder why Shelley mourns the failure of the revolution after the restoration of the French Monarch when it was quite clear that the revolution had finally come full swing with the ascension of Napoleon to the position of Emperor of France. It probably had something to do with Napoleon not actually being an aristocrat. Still, his so called Republics where little more than puppet states ruled by members of his family and were subservient to him. Despite the fact that Napoleon was not a member of any royal family does not mean that he was not an autocrat - he was.
I guess the problem was not so much the fact that French remained an autocracy, but rather that after the Congress of Vienna the monarchy was restablished in France with all of its attendant flaws. However, France could never go back to what it was like before the revolution. This had changed and changed drastically. Revolutionary fever was going to continue to boil up under the surface, and it would finally explode once again in 1848 when the monarch was swept from power and a new Napoleon would arise to take the throne. ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 07, 2013
Apr 09, 2013
Apr 07, 2013
Library Binding
Jan 01, 1990
Apr 01, 2010
really liked it
Shelley's Political Rant
6 April 2013
This was Shelley's first long poem and it was written initially to his first wife (the Queen Mab of the title) wh Shelley's Political Rant
6 April 2013
This was Shelley's first long poem and it was written initially to his first wife (the Queen Mab of the title) when he was 19. All I can say is that if this was his first poem then Shelley's ability is impressive. However, the nature and contents of this poem did actually get him into quite a lot of trouble, no doubt due to the attacks against the king and also the significant atheistic overtones, and it is not that the atheistic nature of the poem is subtle: it is quite blatant, though it is not as if Shelley was necessarily walking new ground, particularly since Blake and others were writing along these lines prior to him.
Mab of the title possibly comes from the reference to her in Shakespeare (which, according to Wikipedia, is the first major literary mention of her). No doubt Shelley would have been familiar with the reference, and in Romeo and Juliet, she is described as a fairy who grants dreams of wish fulfilment to those who are asleep. Maybe the nature of the title reflects Shelley's desire to see a better world where the lower classes do not live under the heel of the ruling class. Unfortunately this has not necessarily come about, even though since Shelley's time social welfare has moved significantly from where it was then and the poorer classes, at least in the Western World, live much more luxurious lives than they did back then. However, there is still a massive distinction between the haves and have-nots, and still an underlying goal in regards to the pursuit of wealth.
One of the interesting things that I have picked up while reading this poem is how political and social criticism is nothing new, which is obvious, but having lived through the period of the Bush administration where political and social criticism reached a level of popularity which I had not seen before, it is interesting to reflect on this style of commentary in ages past. In a way, this period of history also saw a rise in such commentary, particularly since Europe had just been through the French Revolution and the United States had formed a republic out of a rebellion against the English throne. However, it was not the American Rebellion that had been the counter-point of this agitation against the ruling class, simply because it was a rebellion of the wealthy merchant classes against the aristocratic classes. What France has signified was a rebellion of the lower classes (though the leaders of the rebellion were still bourgeoisie) against the aristocratic classes, and the desire for a real democracy, not based upon land ownership (as was the case in the United States) but based upon the fact that everybody is a human being and in that everybody is equal.
It wasn't as if Shelley was writing anything new because writers before him, such as Rousseau, had already been exploring these issues, and even then writers as far back as Jonathan Swift, had been writing allegorical criticism (since in those days writing in the style of Noam Chomsky would have got you in a lot of trouble). It is not even as if he was a Romantic poet in the style of Wordsworth and Coleridge (though we know that there was a lot of influence from that sector) though he does use the romantic style to forward his political agenda. Even then, one questions whether Shelley had much of an impact in his day, but then in many cases such agitators generally do not live to see the effect that they have during their lifetime (Martin Luther King didn't).
Another interesting thing that I have noticed is how Shelley rails against Christianity in this poem. The idea is that the concept of God the Father is a reflection of our understanding of our father from when we were children. However, the tyrant God, as many view him to be, is a reflection of the tyranny of the day. The tyrant God, which is what Shelley is attacking (and what many agitators have attacked before and since) is a means of control over the population. In the same way it is as the idea of the divine right of kings was a method to prevent rebellion against a king because to rebel against the king is the same as rebelling against God. This is something that is still practised today, particularly if you look at parts of Romans which indicate that rulers are raised and deposed at God's whim, and to attempt to remove a ruler yourself is to go against God.
However, I do not believe that such passages indicate that God is a tyrant God, but rather a God of order. Nor do I believe that the passage is saying that we have to accept the ruling of any authority without questioning or challenging it. What I believe that it is talking about is armed rebellion, not political agitation. We do see that in the New Testament that where governments order us to behave in a way contrary to the Gospel then we are to question and challenge that order. It is not challenging the government, but seeking to replace a government through rebellion. Further, there are reasons for this warning, and these reasons necessarily come out in other places, and I have written about these dangers elsewhere as well so I will not necessarily dwell on them here. ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 03, 2013
Apr 06, 2013
Apr 03, 2013
Apr 01, 2003
it was amazing
The Dark Side of the Land of the Free
2 April 2013
Well this is the last official day of my amazing holiday and I am sitting at the bar in the Regal Ai The Dark Side of the Land of the Free
2 April 2013
Well this is the last official day of my amazing holiday and I am sitting at the bar in the Regal Airport Hotel in Hong Kong (at around 1:00 am in the morning). I guess my sleep patterns have been mucked up and I have now resorted to buying my beers by VISA since I really don't want to withdrawal any more money (since I leave Hong Kong at 7:00 am in the morning, which means that I have to be up around 4:30 am, which is okay because I have already had a sleep once I arrived here, but then I have to go back to work on Thursday, which is going to seriously mush my brains, though I hope I won't get thrown straight onto the phones).
Anyway, enough of where I am and onto the Jungle. I had heard about this book from my American History lecturer, and at later times when I was going through the phase of reading anti-corporate, anti-George Bush books. This is sort of one of those books even though it was written over one hundred years ago and is about the meat packing industry in Chicago. However, it is more than that because it is actually about the plight of the immigrant worker who comes to America to experience the land of wealth but is never able to secure that wealth. Mind you, when the book was published it was banned (so much for freedom of speech), and had to be published in a censored form (as I said, so much for the Bill of Rights). They have since released the uncensored version, and that is the version that I managed to get my hands on (at least there is one thing that Amazon does right).
The one thing that stands out to me about the book is the concept of what they call the squeeze. The protagonist of this book comes to America from Lithuania to find a better life, and he brings his family with him. However the only job he can get is in the meat packing industry, and the descriptions of that industry are truly horrifying. No such thing as occupational health and safety, and no such thing as a unionised workplace. Mind you they since managed to clean up their act, however if you read some of the more modern literature (such as Fast Food Nation) you will discover that while there has been some change, it isn't much. In fact the modern meatpacker is more like a factory worker and the meat is processed. There are also some serious concerns about the quality of the meat (and the cows) that go through these factories.
When our hero gets his job it is probably the highlight of the book, and pretty much everything goes down hill from there. He gets a job and he buys a house, however we discover that hanging onto that job can be quite precarious, and because he is working class (and an immigrant) any rights that he may appear to have are tenuous. In fact it appears that losing this job can be easier than getting it, and if you lose it, the chances of you being able to get another job are slim. After he loses his job (he suffers an injury, and in those days there was no workcover, but then even here in Australia workcover only applies to legitimate workers, and there are many occupations here where immigrants are paid cash under the table, which means no workcover) he also loses his family and finds himself on the streets of Chicago.
This reminds me of a scene that I saw in London, and you do see a bit of it in London (as well as many of the other cities I have been to, including Hong Kong – you spend enough time in a city and you end up seeing under its glitz and glamour and begin to see the harsh reality). As I was walking through Leicester Square I walked past a cinema and there was some guy wrapped up in a sleeping bag against the wall. Another guy was shaking him and prodding him, and after about five minutes of no response, ended up making a phone call. While I am not privy to the facts, I can say that London was incredibly cold when I was there, and there are many people who have to brave the cold because they do not have a warm room to go to. I would not be surprised that this guy died of the cold overnight.
Also, a couple of days later I was having a beer in a London Pub (and gee those pubs can get packed, especially on the Easter Long Weekend) and there was a guy telling the bartender about how he used to live on the streets but now has a house. It was funny because he was saying that he finds it difficult to get to sleep in this new environment because he is used to the cars and the people going past. In fact he has to leave his window open to get to sleep. It is also a new experience that he does not have to lug all of his possessions around with him. It sought of makes me think about the plight of our condition, and the fortune that many of us have who are able to travel the world, and even live in a nice warm house with food in our cupboard and a regular paycheck (no matter how small it is, though I would still fight to see people paid a decent amount of money – as they say, a living wage). ...more
Notes are private!
May 03, 2005
May 16, 2005
Apr 02, 2013
really liked it
A critical examination of the nature of the modern corporation
2 February 2013
I guess I discovered this book after watching the documentary movie of t A critical examination of the nature of the modern corporation
2 February 2013
I guess I discovered this book after watching the documentary movie of the same name, though I suspect that the book was based upon the movie (normally such movies tend to spawn books which explore the topics that the movie explores in greater detail). The corporation itself is a dichotomy, namely because despite what is wrong with these entities (Bakan proves that they have all of the characteristics of a psychopath), these entities are also responsible for our current lifestyle. To be honest, to remove the economic institutions we have today and return to the era of the cottage industry and the local store owner will drive up prices and undermine our luxurious lifestyles (which will also be the result of doing nothing).
That does not necessarily mean that it is good for us to live the luxurious lifestyles that we are living in the west, particularly since our lifestyles (as all in history who live such extravagant lives) are supported by slavery. While they may not be slaves in the literal sense, they are slaves in the economic sense, living on less than two dollars a day and working extra-ordinary hours in horrendous conditions. Despite the fact that many of the senior executives of these corporations (as well as the shareholders, which include any of us who have a pension fund) pretend that they don't know how these goods are being made, or the conditions that the workers are working in, in reality (as is demonstrated in The Big One where Michael Moore asks Phillip Knight of Nike to go with him to Indonesia to see the conditions of the factories that the shoes are produced in; an invitation which Phillip Knight politely declines) we all wish to remain wilfully blind to the reality of what is going on (namely because we don't actually want to give anything up, and the more that we have, the less we want to give up).
Granted, while I may not own a car, and resist the temptation to buy things that I do not need, I still live a rather luxurious life, and the fact that I can jump on a plane and fly to Europe and back, is a testament to that. There are people that I work with that to them such an adventure is little more than a pipe dream, and I am not even earning big bucks. This is because I have no dependants and little debt, I have a much higher disposable income than many other people that I work with, even those who hold higher positions than I do.
There are a few things that come out of this book (or I should say the movie, because that is what I am writing from – though I have read the book) that I wish to explore, and one of them is the corporation as the externalising machine. Externalisation is the art of making something somebody else's problem, despite the fact that you are the cause of that problem. For example, when a corporation dumps all of its toxic waste into the river, and lets the government and the community deal with it, then it is externalising waste management. When it is too expensive to actually deal with the waste properly, and the laws that prevent the corporation from dumping the wast are weak, or even non-existent, then the most cost effective way to deal with waste is to externalise it (that is dump it into the river and make it somebody else's problem).
Labour is another thing that is externalised, and one way to do that is to contract out certain areas so that the corporation can cut back on labour costs and not have to feel responsible for how products are used. In fact, where in the past a corporation was defined by what it made and in turn sold, this is pretty much disappearing as we speak. Nike do not make shoes, they contract that out to some sweatshop in Indonesia which is not even owned by them. Instead, they buy the shoes, and then sell the shoes, either direct to the consumer or through an intermediary. As such Nike is no longer a manufacturer of shoes, they are simply a brand that makes money by being a middle man. However, it is not even that by contracting labour to the sweatshops that the product becomes cheaper. The price of the product actually stays the same, it is just the profit that the corporation makes increases (and even then there is no guarantee that the shareholders will ever see any of that profit. Instead they will keep the profits, which no doubt will result in an increased share price, and even then the shareholder must know when to sell (which is nigh impossible) to maximise their investment).
What we need is not to get rid of the corporations, because at heart we need them to be able to maintain our extravagant lifestyles. However, what we need is a paradigm shift, within ourselves and within our society. We have to begin to learn to be content with less. The Socialists are right when they say that even if we live in a country like Australia, we must still remain vigilant less the freedoms and the laws that we have here are undermined by corporate greed. However, how many of us live in houses with electricity, and how many of us watch television? Can we go without our laptops or our mobile devices? It is because we desire these things that the corporations remain in control. Granted these devices make our lives easier, but at what cost? Even if climate change is not a man made phenomena, the pollution that is spewed into the air, and the toxins that are pumped into our water supply, are having a significant impact upon the world in which we live, and to be honest with you, it is unsustainable.
We may wonder if there has ever been a similar period in history like our own, and my answer is that on one hand there hasn't been one, but in another there has. The period I point to is that of the mid to later Roman Empire, where people were living such luxurious lives that they blinded themselves to the ecological destruction that they were causing. It is not simply that either, because inflation was running rampant, and while the rich were getting richer, the basic necessities of life were unreachable by the masses. Rome ended up collapsing, and with it creating a dark age of epic proportions, and that is something that we are even now also looking at. ...more
Notes are private!
Feb 03, 2006
Feb 07, 2006
Feb 02, 2013
really liked it
Investigating America's Vices
19 June 2013
Written the author of Fast Food Nation, this book contains three case studies that each dealing with an area Investigating America's Vices
19 June 2013
Written the author of Fast Food Nation, this book contains three case studies that each dealing with an area of the black market: marijuana, immigrant workers in the strawberry fields on California, and the hard core porn industry. As one can expect from Schlosser, it is a thoroughly researched and tries to look at these industries in an objective manner, and does not necessarily try to conclude with some left wing conspiracy.
Basically there are lots of books that cover the topic of marijuana in the United States and the war on drugs. Being an Australian where possession of small amounts (up to three ounces in some places) is pretty much a misdemeanor that results in a small fine, it is difficult to understand the nature of the war on drugs as it plays out in the United States. In a way the war itself is scary because it has been suggested that if you are caught with even one joint you can be classified as a dealer, locked up, and have all of your possessions confiscated, even before you have been convicted. In a way I believe that this is a really heavy handed approach, particularly since the laws date back to the 1930s, where the Dupont company pushed for the criminalisation of marijuana so that it could dominate the textile industry.
Another argument is also that since it is only recently that marijuana has become a popular Anglo-saxon drug (up until the sixties marijuana was predominantly a Mexican pleasure, and its narcotic purposes were only used in cure-all potions made by chemists, who in those days did not necessarily need a license to practice). Unfortunately, it is very difficult to access anything these days on the history of drugs and drug use since many of these documentaries are generally not made, or if they are, do not appear on the mainstream media (unless of course its message is 'Drugs are bad'). In a way, it feels as if marijuana did not exist prior to the sixties, and that modern drugs, such as meth-amphetamine, did not exist until the late 90s (which is not true because allegedly Hitler used it during World War II and also apparently fed it to his troops).
It appears however that this book is about the black market and how the black market influences all of our lives. In a way we are all exposed to the black market, whether we smoke pot, or rent dodgy videos from those dodgy video stores that have no windows. This is where the second case study comes into play: illegal immigrants. Schlosser looks at the strawberry growers, but this applies to a lot of industries across the United States (and while it happens in Australia, the fact that we do not have any land borders with poorer nations, we have a lot less illegal immigrants than do the United States). The reason illegal immigrants are so popular is because the laws do not apply to them, so they can be paid under the minimum wage, which means more profits for the business owner, and that they are not affected by the unfair dismissal laws (or any of the other laws that apply to legitimate employees).
While the section on the porn industry applies to the black market as well, much of this has more to do with the freedom of speech amendment than it has to do with the black market (even though while the industry was fighting the obscenity laws the profits coming from the porn industry were effectively a part of the black market). Mind you, this section surprised me because I was expecting it to deal with Hugh Heffner or Larry Flynt, but they barely made a mention in this section. I guess the reason is that we are dealing not with what is termed as soft porn (if there is such a thing) but with hard core pornography. Mind you, porn has been around as long as there have been people willing to pay for it (even though before photography, we had to pay for live shows, and then we might as well go to a brothel), however with the advent of film, television, and now the internet, access to it has become a lot easier. ...more
Notes are private!
Sep 06, 2005
Sep 16, 2005
Jan 19, 2013
Apr 01, 2004
Jun 16, 2005
really liked it
Victory is not impossible
18 January 2013
There are a plethora of books out there about what is wrong with the world, and countless pages of research o Victory is not impossible
18 January 2013
There are a plethora of books out there about what is wrong with the world, and countless pages of research of the various countries, dictators, corporations, and Republicans (as well as Democrats) who are making this world a bad place to live, and the things that they are doing to make this world a bad place to live (as if the world has ever been a good place in which to live, but that is another story for another time), but there are very few books that talk about the victories and the people who are winning against these powers and providing hope for a better, or even a not so darker, future. This book is one of those books.
I guess when I picked it up I grabbed it along with a bulk of the other anti-Bush, anti-Republican party books that were filling up the bookshelves at the time to go onto the list of books to read to remind me of how bad Bush and his corporate cronies really were (as if I needed reminding, but I wanted it anyway). Actually, I guess it wasn't so much the reminding, but rather the research and the arguments (as well as indicators of the evidence of this wrongdoing) that I was interested in, but since this book fell amongst that lot, and since it looked interesting, I bought it and ended up reading it.
As the title says, this book is about hope, and is about those people that are winning victories against the corporate onslaught. Look, it is not impossible, difficult but not impossible, to win against these powers. People believed that it would be impossible to defeat Hitler, but we did. We also thought it impossible to bring down the Soviet Union or to end apartheid in South Africa, but once again we did (though the brighter future for both places never eventuated). Once again, it never seemed possible to end slavery in the Southern States, or to break the power of the corporate monopolies of the early Twentieth century, but once again that was achieved. So, while things may seem difficult at this time, and the corporate bosses live in luxury while those of us down on the ground struggle to make ends meet (okay, I don't, but that is because I go without things like a car or a family), there is always that hope in the dark. ...more
Notes are private!
Aug 03, 2007
Aug 07, 2007
Jan 18, 2013
Aug 29, 2006
it was amazing
Understanding God in a Democratic World
18 January 2013
I first heard about this book when I was with one of my lady friends watching late night televi Understanding God in a Democratic World
18 January 2013
I first heard about this book when I was with one of my lady friends watching late night television (the sort that you don't actually watch, but rather have on in the background while you talk about absolutely nothing in particular and are drinking some form of alcoholic beverage). Anyway, this friend of mine particularly hated Christians (with the exception of me, because she thought that I actually gave Christianity a good name, or at least until we had a falling out, and then I became like all the other Christians out there) and as we listened to Jim Wallis advertise his book, she simply thought that he was reciting tired old dogma, where as to me he was beginning to take a new position on Christianity.
Anyway, when I did read the book what struck me the most was not so much about which political party is the most Christian, or which party Christians should vote for, but how God's politics is actually above and separated from the politics of both Republicans and Democracts (or for Australians the Liberals and Labor). As the subtitle of his book says: why the Republicans got it wrong, and why the Democrats don't get it. This is what I think is essential when we understand how we as Christians should interact with the political world: understanding that God is neither Republican or Democrat, nor Liberal or Labour, left wing or right wing, but he is God and his politics are not that which concern either side, but rather what concern him and how we are living our lives as representatives of his church.
It is a shame that in many cases we have Christians drifting towards either party, and playing the political game of brinkmanship, and even using politics as a way to put down and harass their brother's in Christ. We must remember that when the Emperor Theodosius attempted to muscle his way into the communion service during the later Roman Empire the priest pretty much drew a line and made it clear that the political sphere was not to trespass into the spiritual realm, meaning that politicians were not to use the church or Christianity to forward their own political agendas.
Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with everything that Wallis says, particularly with his position on homosexuality. Now, that does not mean that we should be locking homosexuals up, or even persecuting them, but also we should not be compromising ourselves in relation to rewriting the bible in relation to that practice. While it is not my position to judge homosexuals (that is God's position and I am not God) if a church has made a stance where they will not allow homosexual priests, or refuse to participate in homosexual marriages, then we should not force them otherwise. It is the same with regards to homosexual members of the congregation that are going out of their way to promote their agenda within a particular church. In a way, if somebody can get sacked for actively and aggressively promoting their religion in the workplace, then the same goes for homosexuals in a church that is determined to maintain their heterosexual identity.
The other hot potato involves abortion, and while I am a big supporter of the rights of the unborn, I am also a big supporter of the rights of women. This is an issue that I have canvassed before, and I feel that I should touch upon this again in relation to this book: in a promiscuous society, the victim always turns out to be the woman. It is not that abortion is being used as a form of contraception, it is because the system is preventing other forms of contraception from being available and thus exposing women to that risk. The idea is that if we ban contraception,then people will not have sex. Well, that is not true, and in fact we find that in many African countries where aids is spreading out of control, the simple solution of allowing contraception to be available is being denied on the grounds that it only encourages sex.
Look, teenagers will have sex, and even if you spend countless hours telling them why they shouldn't have sex, they will still go and have sex. In fact, by telling people that they shouldn't have sex because it is a beautiful thing that is left only until marriage will only encourage them to have sex. In fact it also goes to create marriages that are not based upon the biblical concept, which is the sharing of a life with both parties work together for the common good of humanity, but rather it is simply an excuse to have sex, and a lot of it (which is not a bad thing). However the actual basis of the marriage does not exist and is not stable and this leads to adulterous affairs and even divorce.
Then there is the aspect of the single mother who is victimised in more way than one. First of all, without the supportive husband, the woman and the child are both thrust into poverty, and once there it is impossible (or very difficult) to escape. Okay, that is not necessarily grounds for divorce, but once again the woman (and the child) are punished while the male gets away scott free. This can be solved by making contraception more readily available, but with the slogan: if it is not on, then it is not on. Remember this though, just because abortion is banned, an unwanted pregnancy is not going to magically become a wanted pregnancy. ...more
Notes are private!
Apr 30, 2006
May 06, 2006
Jan 18, 2013
Feb 01, 2002
Mar 05, 2002
liked it
A lesson in double-speak and the futility of sanctions
18 January 2013
I guess the difference between terrorism and war is the same as that between a p A lesson in double-speak and the futility of sanctions
18 January 2013
I guess the difference between terrorism and war is the same as that between a pirate and and emperor, namely that the emperor acts on the authority of a state where as a pirate acts upon his own authority, but when we raise the question of the source of that authority we wonder whether there is any real difference between a pirate and an emperor. As the pirate king said to Alexander the Great, the only difference between the two was that Alexander had an army.
The same would apply to the terrorist and the freedom fighter, namely that one acts on the authority of a state while the other acts upon their own authority, but even then those distinctions become blurred. The French Resistance acted on their own authority during World War II but also acted in the interests of the Allies, though theoretically were probably no better than the insurgents that acted against the Americans in Iraq and Vietnam. In fact, the insurgents in Vietnam were acting under the defacto authority of the North Vietnamese.
However the idea from this book is not the question of the source of the authority that allows one to go to war and forbids the other. When Saddam invaded Kuwait without authority he was punished, but when the United States invaded Iraq without any authority, no punishment was metered out. It is much easier to place economic sanctions against a tinpot dictatorship than it is place them against an economic superpower, however that, in many cases is changing. For instance, manufacturing is moving outside of the United States, and the United States is no longer considered to be the sole superpower with the rise of China. However, the problem is that the Chinese and American economies are so intertwined that it would be hard, if not impossible, for China to survive with sanctions against the United States. Yet, we also must remember that there was a very similar situation in the lead up to World War I with a similar symbiotic relationship between England and Germany.
The question of sanctions against a superpower also brings us back to the Napoleonic Wars. Here Napoleon attempted to place sanctions against England in an attempt to starve England economically. Basically it did not work, and while he had control of the European Continent, he did not have complete control, which was why he had to invade Russia. Further, it did not actually starve England because England was a sea power who was able to draw upon her colonies to survive. She could be isolated from Europe without facing any ill effects, and in fact she had blockaded Napoleon's ports and also destroyed his navy at Trafalgar, which gave her unprecedented control of the seas.
Then again who suffers in a war? The easy answer is that it is the civilians. When economic sanctions are levelled against a country it is not the ruling elite who suffer, and it is not necessarily their army that suffers either but it is the average civilian. If the idea of sanctions is to starve and weaken the power of a rogue dictator it generally does not work. Take North Korea for instance: despite years of economic sanctions the army is still strong enough to keep the leaders in power. The leaders still have their luxurious palaces and the army still has food in their stomach, but the average civilian is struggling daily to stay alive. What is happening is in fact the opposite: the civilians are becoming weaker which means their ability to rebel against the leadership is sapped away while the position of the leadership becomes stronger because the population is no longer able to rebel against an army that is still being fed.
The best way to undermine such a power is to undermine the army because it is the army that keeps the ruling elite in power. We are seeing this in North Africa, where we have Gadaffi's army deserting him forcing him to rely upon a mercenary force. Okay, without Western intervention, Gadaffi would have won, and if Gadaffi had enough money to support an army, then he has enough money to support a mercenary force. In the situation of many of these people there does not actually seem to be any concern that they will be killed because even though Gadaffi was on the losing side, he was still able to bring mercenaries in. I guess it is the whole risk/reward principle. People still gamble despite the knowledge that the odds are weighed against them because of that small chance that the odds will shift, even for a moment, into their favour. ...more
Notes are private!
Mar 08, 2006
Mar 08, 2006
Jan 18, 2013
May 27, 2004
it was ok
A criticism of the Bush Administration shortly after their election
4 August 2015
Okay, I may not actually be writing this review (as I had done so a w A criticism of the Bush Administration shortly after their election
4 August 2015
Okay, I may not actually be writing this review (as I had done so a while back) but I am going over it again to try and correct some of the glaring spelling and gramatical errors (as I have been doing for most of my reviews – and I am getting quite close to finishing them off). Anyway, I am currently sitting in a flying coffin at 30,000 above Malaysia, on my way to Phuket where I will be using the time to tidy up a few more of my reviews, as well as visiting Salamanga at James Bond island. However, that is beside the point because I probably should be spending more time relaxing and exploring than writing book reviews – but then again I guess that is one of things things I like doing. Anyway, on with the review.
This book is quite dated since the Bush cronies are now gone and the Democrats, lead by Barak Obama, are now well into a second term in the oval office (though they were recently smashed is the mid-terms). However, just because this ultra-right wing conservative government has been tossed out of the door does not necessarily mean that things have changed, or that change is going to be effected overnight. Many people are now criticising Obama on the fact that when he entered office on the platform of 'change you can believe in' that all of the problems that plague the United States would be solved overnight. As became obvious, the power brokers in this neo-fuedal system were not going to lie down without a fight. Even the Health Care Reform was little more than a cobbled together attempt to move the United States away from the two-tier system that had evolved that simply gives the health insurance industry more money (namely by forcing the insurers to accept applicants – then again, a government funded system would result in huge losses to the private insurers as it would mean that people would no longer see the need to take out private insurance).
However, the legacy of the Bush era is a multi-trillion dollar debt, a sluggish economy, more people under the poverty line, millions unemployed, a two wars in which many have lost loved ones or have had their lives drastically changed due to a roadside bomb. In fact one could point to these two wars as the reason that the United States is struggling with a debt burden that is going to be impossible to pay. However, despite all of this, the elite still live in the multi-million dollar mansions, sip their pina colladas, and watch their broadway plays, while the middle class is slowly being destroyed and the ranks of the poor are ever increasing.
We cannot say that we were not warned. It is interesting that it was well known that Bush was in fact a very bad manager of money. He ran two companies into the ground, ran the state of Texas into the ground, and a year before his term expired, the American economy was pushed to brink of collapse. However the companies that were responsible for this were bailed out, and then the government was further required to cut back on spending on essential services while the directors of these companies simply went on with life as normal. In the end, as in every similar situation, a fall guy was found (Mardoff) and all of the rage and anger was focused on him while the real criminals simply went off scott free.
As for Bush's Christianity, that is something that I am not at liberty to make comment, though it is interesting that his mentors turned out to be the usual suspects when it comes to the Christian right in the United States. This is an anti-abortion, and in fact, anti-fun coalition that is trying to impose a rigid morality on the United States, still believing that it is a country that has been blessed by God because of its Christian heritage. If economic success is a sign of blessing, and blessing only comes because a country remains true to its Christian heritage, then maybe the economic miracle in China is nothing more than a fraud (and people actually seem to think that this is a case). Or how about Ethiopia, or Kenya? These two countries have a very strong Christian heritage, but struggle with endemic poverty. This idea is once again a part of the so called prosperity heresy (as I like to call it), and now I understand why these pastors live such luxurious lifestyles - it is simply to convince the members of their church that the prosperity doctrine does indeed work because God has blessed them with riches (despite the fact that these riches have simply come through tithing and selling merchandise that peddles this false doctrine). ...more
Notes are private!
Oct 13, 2002
Oct 17, 2002
Jan 17, 2013
Jan 17, 2001
Apr 04, 2002
it was amazing
The horrors of industrialised food
13 June 2013
I really appreciated the fact that a DVD was finally released that covers a number of issues in this bo The horrors of industrialised food
13 June 2013
I really appreciated the fact that a DVD was finally released that covers a number of issues in this book. For those who are interested, the DVD is called Food Inc and the main premise of this book, and the DVD, is to pierce the veil of the modern American food industry. Now, remember that I live in Australia so there are a number of concepts that I simply do not understand. For instance, here in Australia, it is cheaper to cook your own meals on a daily basis than to go to McDonalds every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Mind you, health wise, that is very bad (sort of like hitting your head with a hammer five times a day, three times each), but the economic consequences simply do not add up. I believe (and friends that I have spoken with agree) that you could eat at home for $2.00 a meal, as opposed to the $10.00 minimum you would pay eating out.
However, that may not be the case in the United States (and that is ignoring the question of time, because making your own meals does take time) where I have been told that fast food restaurants have happy hours the same way that pubs have happy hours (which makes you wonder about the governments attempts to reduce alcohol related violence). Apparently buying fresh food in the United States is not cheap, and that is despite the fact that food is manufactured in the United States on an industrial scale, and that the marketplace pretty much dictates the price that they purchase food.
It seems that the United States, the land of the free and home of the brave, is being turned into a modern day feudal system. People have jumped down my throat at that, but it is true in many cases. While you may be free in principle, in actuality you are not. Your employer, and your debts, pretty much keep you tied to the place in which you live. For instance, if you buy a house, you do not own the house, the house owns you. It is a lot more difficult for you to move to another city when you own a house because you have to sell the house, and then make arrangements for accommodation in a new local. Secondly (at least here in Australia) unless you have skills that are needed, it is very hard to find work in another city.
It is the farmers that strike me the most as being reduced to slavery, particularly the chicken farmers (and I suspect that this is the case across the board). To be able to survive as a chicken farmer you must have your farm set up in the specifications that the four major meat producers (which control over 80% of the market) dictate, and if you don't have those specifications they won't buy from you, and if they won't buy from you, good luck finding another customer. Therefore, you must borrow from the banks to be able to upgrade and then when the companies are dictating the price that they pay you pretty much find yourself in debt slavery.
Then there is the question of the workforce. For instance, it is cheaper (at least in America) to hire illegal immigrants as a work force, and in fact have your entire workforce made up of illegal immigrants. However, because it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants as workers, the companies routinely call in immigration, say once every two months, to report a small number of illegals to make it look like they are towing the line (and of course the illegal labour force is so large it is okay to get rid of some of them every so often). As for the citizens, it turns out that me, a humble call center operator, earns more than a manager at McDonalds in the United States. The minimum wage is certainly minuscule. Not only that but the job is actually very, very dangerous. Working the graveyard shift at McDonalds is almost as dangerous as working the graveyard shift at 7/11.
Food quality is also an issue that is raised and once again it is not something that we encounter here in Australia, with strict food hygene laws (though that may be part of the con, because the big boys still have a lot of influence here). Basically the government regulators are little more than toothless tigers, populated by executives that used to work in the food industry. Moreso, it is a criminal offence (under the food libel laws) to actually speak out against the food industry. Oprah did, and was taken to court, but Oprah has enough money to be able to fight and win (which she did) but most of us little people have little to no hope against the likes of Monsanto. Even if your lawyer works for you for free, the cost of litigation is huge. The idea of justice is not so much about the truth, but rather a threat to bankrupt you unless you tow the line. ...more
Notes are private!
Mar 12, 2005
Mar 17, 2005
Jan 13, 2013
Jan 01, 2003
it was ok
What Johnny Said
17 December 2012
The good thing about these books is that they tend to be cheap and quick to read, but the bad thing about these books What Johnny Said
17 December 2012
The good thing about these books is that they tend to be cheap and quick to read, but the bad thing about these books is that they become dated pretty quickly. Still, they are good because they correlate all of the so called lies and backflips that they have made up until the point that the book was published, especially when you have a prime minister that was been in as long as John Howard was. Also, like this book, they are usually publish before an election (and the publishing costs are probably paid for by the opposition). In short, they are an election strategy to attempt to get people to vote for the other side.
The thing is that politicians lie, all of them. It is not that they intentionally lie, but rather they make promises to get elected and then realise that they are unable (or unwilling) to keep those promises because the actual state of the government is kept hidden from them up until the point they are elected (though some, like one of our Prime Ministers, have no intention of ever keeping those promises). However, they can only use that excuse in the first year of their first term, and they certainly cannot use it when they get elected a second, or a third, time.
The thing about Howard is that he claimed that he never knew about a lot of the things that his subordiantes were doing, but them again it is not like they are aware of all of the indiscretions of their subordinates. It is like any manager of any company: they have subordinates to look after the areas that they cannot physically look after themselves. Even more so when you are in government, because everybody has such as public face, it is difficult to discipline people without raising questions from the public. However, there are ways that they do discipline them, such as encouraging ministers to step down (usually by saying they want to spend more time with their family) or by not contesting the next election.
The problem is that many of these people still go on to do wonderful things. Okay, Peter Reith may not have realised that his son was taking advantage of his phone card, but even politicians suspected of corruption still seem to be rewarded for their efforts. However, there are instances where people are technically not doing anything wrong (though locking up refugees in contravention of the Charter of Human Rights is ethically wrong) but just following party policy.
Mind you, when you see opposition politicians after they were defeated in an election being awarded plump overseas posts by the government in power you do wonder if there really isn't any backroom dealings occuring. That is one of the problems with trying to work with the opposition because it always seems to be the left leaning parties that offer to work and the right leaning parties then using that as an opportunity to drag the left leaning party over to their side. While it may seem to be conciliatory that both Rudd and Obama wanted to work with their political opponents, the truth be told these opponents don't actually want to work with them, they simply want to push through their right wing corporatist agenda. ...more
Notes are private!
Sep 13, 2003
Sep 13, 2003
Dec 17, 2012
Jan 01, 2002
liked it
A guide to political survival
15 December 2012
I guess the one thing that I liked about this book was how McCullum opened it: while politics is an hono A guide to political survival
15 December 2012
I guess the one thing that I liked about this book was how McCullum opened it: while politics is an honourable profession, there are not many honourable politicians out there. However, while it is written as a farcial account from an older politician to a younger politician, there are many things in this book that probably hold true to politics today. Of course, as they say, a year is a long time in politics and a lot of things have happened between the time this book was written and now, however the basic principles about surviving in politics still hold true today as they did back when the book was written.
The problem with being an honourable politician is that if you are one then you are not going to get all that far, and the problem with modern politics is that it is not focused on the long term. In many cases politics always works in three year cycles, and of those three years, only two of them have any production in them (I am speaking of Australian federal politics here, where the electoral cycle lasts three years). However, when I look at some other countries where the cycle lasts six years I feel that it can create an entrenched system, meaning that once a president is elected you are stuck with that president for six years.
I remember back in 1999 when John Howard won his second election by the skin of his teeth, but then went jaunting around claiming that he had a mandate because the Australian people had given it to him. Basically, his attitude was that once he was elected he could pretty much do what he liked, whether the people actually wanted him to do it or not. In that instance it was the GST, and he had been open with that throughout the election, but then another five years down the track (and one more election victories) he introduced Workchoices, which to many people came out of left field.
Obviously here in Australia we do have the power to pressure our politicians to shift their position, but then again there are a lot of other factors involved as well. If a small group of people are put out by a decision, then it can be seen that the government does not care because they are only interested in keeping the majority happy, and of course as long as the majority are happy then they will continue to get elected. This was proven in the 1994 election because, despite joining in with an illegal war against Iraq, Howard still managed to win comfortably, but in a way that had a lot to do with his opponent. Even the worst prime minister can still win an election if his opponent is even more on the nose (take Paul Keating and John Hewson for example).
Mind you, this book is not about politics in general, but rather how to survive the cut throat world of parliament as a politician. In truth the best chance of getting elected is to be endorsed by one of the major political parties. This is not always the case though as there are a few independents that have been elected to the lower house, but they tend to be the exception as opposed to the rule. It will be interesting to see how much pull Bob Katter has next election, since when somebody does come up as a threat, such as Pauline Hanson, both parties can effectively unite to keep the loose cannon out (though it is clear that Bob Katter is much smarter, and more level headed, than Pauline Hanson, though on the other hand she does reflect the views of a lot of Australians).
The interesting thing about politics is that you don't actually need any qualifications to be one: all you need is to know the right people, and to have the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact there have been instances where the government has been so on the nose that even the most unlikely candidates have been elected simply because he (or she) must be better than the other guy. Then again that is the fickle nature of democratic elections. However, in developed democracies democratic elections are little more than institutionalised revolutions, though despite that neither party (and they are usually two) never brings about any change. In fact most of the time people vote for the status quo, and it is only when governments move to change too much (such as Workchoices) that the government will get thrown out. As such, in seeing that governments in our developed country actually do little to really change things, I wonder whether governments in the developing world actually do anything to lift the people of their countries out of the mire in which that they find themselves stuck. ...more
Notes are private!
Nov 2005
Nov 06, 2005
Dec 15, 2012
Apr 18, 2011
it was amazing
Once again I am beginning a commentary on a book that I haven't finished (though I have now), but the main reason here is because I wanted to read a Once again I am beginning a commentary on a book that I haven't finished (though I have now), but the main reason here is because I wanted to read a couple of more books so that I could then wrap them, pack them, and post them before Christmas, and anyway, I still have five and a half weeks to finish this book, so when I have read the other two, I do intend to go back and finish this book. The second reason is that there is so much in this book to discuss that I don't really want to let the ideas that I have picked up from reading this book drift too far back.
Zizek is a Slovanian left wing philosopher and is a self professed communist and athiest. Now, remember he is Slovanian so he would have experienced first hand the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, and this is something that is addressed at the beginning of his book. He refers to the dramatic paradigm shift in Poland, in that it went from a totalitarian state to a free market society, however his indication was that it was not the free market economy that they necessarily wanted, but rather a society where they could have free speech. His suggestion is that they did not necessarily want to swing so far to the right that the state pretty much takes a back seat in the economic process of the state. I do not necessarily suspect that that is entirely correct, because the pure communist state did collapse under economic pressures, namely because there was no incentive for people to do anything, and as such, nothing ever got produced, which resulted in empty shelves in the shops. He does indicate that in reference to Cuba, where Raoul Castro blames the west for their current food crisis when in reality it is because nobody is actually farming the fertile land.
In some of the commentaries I have read there is an indication that Zizek seems to come to no real conclusion, and that he seems to jump quite a lot. In regards to conclusions, I feel that his intention is to try to have us think about the things that we are saying, and those of us who can think and act, can then act on them. Yes, he does seem to jump about, and at times I wonder what his discussions in the chapters actually have to do with the chapters, but despite that, there are a lot of thought provoking things that he does write, and the trick is to pick up the ideas that do sit quite well and actually make sense. As for purpose, well, those of us who know Zizek knows that he writes about a concept of the Big Other. This concept is basically the social conscience, which is summed up in an Ancient Greek word oklos.
Oklos is defined as a crowd, however the actual definition refers to a crowd as a single thinking entity. Take for instance the scene where Jesus is presented before the crowd by Pilate and the entire crowd cries out 'crucify him'. That is the oklos. Anyway, many left wing philosophers write about how it is the capitalist elite who are the problem in the world, but Zizek takes a different approach by saying that it is actually the oklos. The reason is that in a capitalist society the direction of the corporations and the political will is determined by the will of the people. Two examples from Australia will outline this. First we have the issue of pokie machines which are a social blight on our landscape. Many people hate these machines and the damage that they cause, so much that a senator and a representative was elected on an anti-pokie machine ticket. However, recently, a group tried to force through an amendment to the constitution of a major corporation to restrict their use of pokie machines. Basically the amendment only garnered 2.5% of the vote, which goes to show that while there is a minority who despise poker machine, the majority either don't care, or even prefer the profits that the poker machines bring. Despite 60% of the vote being in the hands of superfunds, these funds represent millions of investors who all want a return on their investment, so when the question of listening to an ethical minority over listening to a majority who simply want returns, the majority always wins out.
The second example deals with refugees. Once again in Australia, there is a small minority who think the government's treatment of refugees is appalling and demands a more compassionate approach. While Labour was out of power they were incredibly vocal against the Liberal (read Conservative) Party's policies regarding refugees. However, once Labour came into power, they suddenly realised that if they wished to continue to win elections, they needed to change their stance on refugees because, despite the cries of the minority, it was the majority that demanded tougher sanctions. In fact, we have even seen the Greens drift further to the right in this regard, realising that if they also wished to keep on getting votes, they could not take a compassionate stance either.
Now, this book follows the idea of the grief cycle by applying it to a terminally ill society, and Zizek splits it into chapters indicating each of the stages of the cycle, being denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, with some other chapters thrown in. As mentioned, it can be difficult to see how what he writes actually relates to society experiencing the grief cycle simply because he seems to explore numerous ideas under each of the headings.
Denial seems to be more aimed at the left and how they believe that something can actually be done about it, and the issue of multiculturalism and tolerance comes up a lot, but as he recognises, the compassionate left first of all is a minority and secondly dwells in the city. In many cases, they believe, wrongly, that we can learn to tolerate these other cultures, but in reality what is happening is that these other cultures are slowly being absorbed into one mono-culture, if that is what is happening, because in many cases the cultures are simply forming into multiple ghettos. We see this in Paris and we even see this in Sydney (with a huge Lebanese population in Lakemba and a large Asian population in Cabramatta). In a sense, the idea of a multicultural society, in Zizek's mind (and I agree with him) is impossible, particularly where it comes to religion. For instance, we may seek to tolerate other religions, but when our religion tells us that all other religions are wrong, we either transform our religion to accept it, or we put up barriers against those of who think differently from us.
While I am on the subject of religion, I want to explore what I find really surprising about Zizek, and that is for an Athiest, he is very accepting of the teachings of Christ and Christianity. However, I note that he has mentioned a flaw in modern Christianity that has stained this religion for over 1500 years, and that is the question of wealth. Ideally the original faith was one of sharing resources, however once it became a state religion, the problem of uneven distribution of wealth came to play, so instead of addressing it, Christianity shifted its teachings to accept it. Now, in many cases, the issue of Greed is something that pastors will say 'bad, bad' from the pulpit, but not actually address it. In fact, with myself, I am almost loathe to give to the church, since if I were to impoverish myself by giving to the church, I would not actually receive anything from the church. To me, it almost seems as if the violent attacks against abortion and gay marriage is almost like the church trying to make up for 1500 years of acceptance of greed. It is like the Christian leader that does extra well as a leader because he is trying to make up for his porn addiction. In fact, it is the moral core of Christianity, in particular the idea of self-sacrifice, that Zizek seems to admire so much about the faith.
Another aspect of the issue of multiculturalism is the idea of the burka (and I can relate this this). In Western countries, there is almost a repulsion against the burka, namely because it conceals the part of the body that defines us so much, and that is our face. When we speak to people we like to see their face because it enables us to relate to them. In a way what the burka does is that it places a barrier between the people communicating. The idea that the French have in banning the burka is that it is a symbol of the oppression of woman, but in doing so does not necessarily make the lives of the women better. In fact it could make them worse, with husbands refusing to allow them to leave the house. In a way the banning of the burka is not so much freeing women (just like banning abortion is not about saving the lives of the unborn), but rather about creating an acceptable mono-culture for everybody (and remember that we have had mono-cultures before, such as Rome, these cultures tend to borrow from other cultures and create what could be considered a superculture).
Another example is the idea of the Roma, and Zizek tells a story of some Roma who were camped out near a village in Solvenia. When the villagers demanded that they be moved, the left wing elements in the city cried foul and called for tolerance, however what is not revealed is that these city dwellers do not know or understand the Roma. Moreso, while the liberals to cry about tolerance, many do not actually realise that the Roma themselves are a very closed society. Though it is true that attitudes towards them have been quite bad, there is also a distrust within the Roma of those who are not Roma. At least the Amish in the United States give their children the opportunity to chose either their lifestyle, or that of the outside.
One of the cool things about the second chapter was not so much his analysis of movies, but the movies that he analysed, namely The Dark Knight and Kung Fu Panda. Seriously, anybody who anaylises Kung Fu Panda has got to be cool, but in anycase, not only does he indicate that the cartoon is a means of creating a story that is absurd and would be offensive as a live action film, it also shows the idea of the collapses of the meta-narrative. The meta-narrative is the basic social foundation of our western society, but as the idea of multiculturalism imposes itself upon the oklos the original story begins to break down, and that is what we see in the eastern philosophies of Kung Fu Panda. In a way, the fact is that both China and India, large social groupings of people of many differing beliefs, have created what is considered a relativistic mindset. This was similar with the Roman World, until the narrative of the Christian worldview took over and gave us the modern meta-narrative, namely the idea that history moves from beginning to end, with struggles against evil in which good ultimately triumphs. However, this triumph does not come easily as it nonetheless involves sacrifice, with the supreme sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross.
However, the Dark Knight also indicates that there is a change in the narrative, a sort of lie that forms a part of the sacrifice so that the idea of the good may reign supreme. The character of Harvey Dent is always seen as being the element of good, however, for those of use who have seen the film, know that in the end this character is twisted, by selfish means, namely that he lives while she whom he loves dies, becomes the element of evil. His death, in the end is covered up so that the idea of good reigning is held out to the oklos. Interestingly enough, and this is the case in the sequal Dark Knight Rises, that the actual villians of the piece are actually the honest ones, honest in the goals and aspirations, and also out to expose the truth. It is almost as if the narrative has changed from that of the hero being honest and exposing the lie (though that does form the basis of many a thriller still) to the villain being the honest one and the crime that he is committing is exposing the lie. It is as if the oklos itself must continue to be deceived for stability to be maintained, and thus the idea of denial.
I also wish to mention his discussion of the remake, as is evident with the Will Smith film, I am Legend. Now, the original story, and film, was about the last man alive living in a world of vampires. In the end the man is killed, and as such humanity becomes the stuff of legends. Thus again we see the idea of multiculturalism, or the move to the super culture, being played out. Where in our world the vampires are the stuff of legend, the world changes so that the vampires become the norm, and humans are now legend, as is the title I am Legend. However, in the modern remake we see a shift, and the idea that humanity is holding on by its fingernails, and one man survives so as to allow humanity to be saved, the Christ figure. Thus, the idea of the legend shifts from that which is lost to the mists of history, to the idea of the sacrificial figure that saves humanity from destruction.
Now we come to the chapter on Anger, and there is a lot of discussion about violence and the idea of violence, so first I will go over the idea I mentioned earlier about revolution. Remember, that it was not so much that Poland wanted a free economic system, but a system where people could speak and think how they wished. It was a desire for a socialist state where there political freedom. However interestingly enough, to maintain a revolution, one must resort to violence, as is seen with both Russia and with France. Consider that in 1917 Lenin was in the minority, and when he did win, he had to move to silence the opponents so that he might create is idea of a utopian socialist state, one that, within a few years, came close to collapse.
Zizek looks at the animal world, a world where it appears that the inhabitants live in a purely socialist world. There appears to be no competition, nor is there any need or want, however we must remember that this is also idealised. In the animal world might means right, and only the strongest survives. When two lions are confronted with one deer, the lions will fight to get the deer. I do not think he is right when he talks about the animal world as being a socialist utopia, but rather the we admire the animal world because we, as humans, recognise that we are above them, and we look down on them in the same way that we believed that the gods, beings superior to ourselves, would look down on us. It is a form of tourism, which in a way makes me balk about so called short term missions to third world countries, because in a way we travel there as gods walking among mortals.
Now I will turn to the idea of the biblical concept of turn the other cheek. To our mind we believe that it is the idea of not responding to violence with violence, however it is suggested that being struck on the cheek in ancient times was a form of shaming, thus to turn the other cheek, was a rebuke to that by simply saying, 'now make me your equal'. However, Zizek does go on to suggest that sometimes to respond to a fight by fighting is to actually concede to the bully, and that the best way to respond to violence is to turn away because, in a sense, that is a violent act in and off itself. Returning a blow is a compromising yourself rather than defending yourself, and makes me think of the person who gets even more angrier when you do not respond with anger, but with love 'why don't you fight me!'.
Now, Zizek really does turn a lot of concepts that we take forgranted on their head and actually points out how we, living in so called advanced democracies, are actually fooling ourselves. We believe that the progress, and wealth, can only come through democracy, however he points out that this is actually not the case. We we think of totalitarian states we either think of Africa, which is a basketcase, or we believe the lies that are peddled to us by the media. In reality, many of the democracies (South America for instance, and also Africa) are actually the basket cases, and it is the totalitarian regimes that are the societies that are advancing. Take Iraq for instance. The reason Iraq was originally invaded was not because it was a basket case totalitarian state (like Zimbabwe) but it was a totalitarian state that was actually progressing. In fact, when Sadam took power, he increased the wealth of the average Iraqi a hundred fold. The problem was that he was a threat, which is why the Americans bombed them back into the stone age. In fact, if we look at history (even recent history) we discover that the states that have progressed the most in the shortest amount of time have been totalitarian states. Germany pulled itself out of the great depression much faster than the liberal democracies (who were only able to do so by declaring war against Germany) and then look at the so called Chinese miracle. The difference is that a totalitarian state does not need to go to an election every four of so years, which means that they can have a much longer term view, rather than having to commit to only short term goals, and the myth of a budget surplus. In fact, when the latest advance is the iPhone 5, which is thinner than all of its rivals, one must wonder if this really is progress.
Okay, I think I should have a discussion about the problems with revolutions, and that is because it ends up that only a small minority really wants the system to actually change. It is only when things really get bad that the entire population will rise up in an attempt to overthrow the existing order, and even then it is usually only small changes that they want. Most of the revolutions of history have generally been wars among the wealthy classes. We see this with the English revolution in the 17th century, which was mainly a war between the wealthy aristocrats (supported by the Catholic Church) and the wealthy merchants (supported by the Protestants). Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, such as with France, Russia, and the revolutions of 1848 and the Arab Spring. I will not comment on the Arab Spring as we are not sufficiently past that to actually see the effects, but with the French and Russian revolutions there was really no actual change in the system of government. Both began as totalitarian states and both ended as totalitarian states. In fact with France, the revolution in a sense is still ongoing, with the last major event occuring in 1968 (and even then we see it in the streets of French cities today with the immigrant minorities running around buring cars – the insurance companies must be loving that).
The problem with these two revolutions was not just the timing, in fact the timing was perfect, a majority of the people had simply become fed up and the government was so weak that it could not effectively put down an uprising (unlike Libya which required outside intervention). Anyway, we see similar events within both Russia and France, namely that once the revolution had taken hold, the immediate thought that came to mind was protecting the gains in the revolution, which resulted in a prolonged terror. This was much more noticeable in France because the purges in Russia came much later when Stalin was attempting to protect his own position. However, even in Russia, once the Bolsheviks had taken power, their position was still weak, and they had to fight against the combined forces of the capitalist west to maintain their position. Even internally they have problems, since the Mensheviks, more popular than the Bolsheviks, threatened to derail the communist experiment, and this resulted in the suspension of elections, permanently. Even then, the problem of free speech arose, and when Gorbachev finally allowed freedom of speech, it was effectively the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. ...more
Notes are private!
Nov 23, 2012
Dec 11, 2012
Nov 23, 2012
Jan 01, 2002
Apr 03, 2003
liked it
A rant from the President of the World Bank
27 October 2012
I guess I picked this up thinking that it would be interesting to see what a former preside A rant from the President of the World Bank
27 October 2012
I guess I picked this up thinking that it would be interesting to see what a former president of the World Bank had to say about the globalisation debate. It was an interesting read but I sometimes wonder the extent of the appeal that this book would have since it is written by the former president of the World Bank. For instance if I were to hand this book to a left leaning person they would dismiss it out of hand because it was written by the former president of the world bank (let's see how many times I can say that), while when I showed it to a guy that was so far to the right, he made Ronald Reagan look like a left wing radical, he scoffed at it and said 'Stiglitz, he's a lefty'.
I did find this book interesting, though it seemed to be very much in the vein of 'well, the World Bank was set up to eliminate poverty, and it would have worked if not for the IMF'. Seriously, do you expect me to believe that? Why do you think I include the World Bank among the unholy trinity (of the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank). Well, it is suggested that the World Bank is generally headed up by Europeans, but then again Margaret Thatcher and Nicolas Sarkozy are also Europeans (though I get the feeling that Britain does not really like to consider itself as European, probably because they are special since they speak English).
The problem with rising to the top and attempting to implement change is that when you get up there you suddenly discover that there are all of these competing interests that you must consider when making such decisions. It would be all well and good to take all of the wealth off of the billionaires and give it to the poor, but if all the poor do is go and spend it, and live it up, you will discover that in the end they won't have been lifted out of poverty.
Anyway I have noticed that with some poor people, though not all of them. There are people on the pension that are quite frugal to the point that they are able to afford an overseas holiday. However, on the other, hand I have seen (and been one myself) where the first thing that you do when you get your pension cheque is to take it all out of the bank, and spend it all. It is one of the reasons I prefer to keep money in the bank because if I take it out I spend it.
In a way trying to solve all of the world's problems can be daunting in and of itself, but we must remember that this is a fallen world and that we will never live in a perfect world this side of the restoration of all things. However, it does not mean that we cannot go out and attempt to make it a better place. People have done that in the past. Remember that we now have universal health care (for what it is worth), free education (for what it is worth), safe streets, and welfare because people in the past have campaigned for it. William Wilberforce brought an end to slavery and Martin Luther broke the power of the Catholic Church. Change is possible, and moving away from the ideas that are binding and destroying our society is also possible.
The problem, as is outlined in this book, is that we are stuck with a mindset that simply does not work. In the same way that wars are fought by generals who have no idea of what it is like in the trenches, economic policy is developed in universities where people have no concept of what it is like to struggle in a capitalistic society. Our politicians live lives of luxury, and the corporate bosses are stuck in their walled enclosures not understanding what it is like to be an employee struggling with everything that seeks to squeeze money from you. You may be on a million dollars a year, but when somebody is earning only 1% of that, and having to pay for essentials that you simply don't even think about then there is a problem. You may be a nice guy, but if you don't understand the plight of the middle class, and you don't understand how somebody can support a family on $50000.00 then you have lost touch. You are no better than the aristocracy of old.
However we can't simply say that it is too hard and nothing can be done because Martin Luther broke the back of the Catholic Church, and William Wilberforce brought and end to slavery in England. These were two things that at the time seemed impossible. The factory workers of 19th century England could only dream of a day when they would receive fair wages and a safe workplace, and people in the Third World still dream of that possibility. We have that, but even then it is slowly being taken away. The introduction of the private health care rebate is creating a system where some can afford health care and others cannot. The same with fees for enducation, since everytime we raise fees we cut funding. We may still have subsidised education where as Bagladesh does not, but we are slowly moving in that direction.
I have probably said much about that before, however I want to talk about one of the assumptions that seems to be permeating about: the Efficient Market Theory. The idea is that because the market is made up of many small people then as a collective they act in an reasonable manner, while individually they may not. The idea is that the market is always at a point of perfection due to a belief in mass psychology. However that is rubbish on two counts. Simply because we are talking about mass psychology does not mean that the mass behaves in a reasonable manner. Take the French Revolution for instance. That was a mass rebellion against the established order, and they did not act in a reasonable manner. In fact all hell broke loose. Taking this idea over to the markets has the same effect. Bad news tends to create mass hysteria meaning that a company, or the broad based market, will loose a lot more than what it should. Usually, in relation to the market, this happens after a period of mass euphoria, where the mass believes that nothing can go wrong and the market will always go up.
However the idea that the market is made up of a mass of individuals is also a myth. While to an extent our savings are exposed to the market, this is generally through a series of proxies, namely the banks and the superfunds. As it turns out the collective of retail shareholders (shareholders who have a direct exposure to the market through individual shareholdings) is quite small. The bulk of the market is actually owned by a handful of individuals in the form of a company. While a company, such as AMP (a large Australian Superfund) may have a number of fund managers, it is not so much the individual manager that holds the shares but the company as a whole. Also, while we may have our super in a specific fund, we generally do not know the actual make up of that fund (is it shares, and if so, what shares does it hold?). As such, the idea of the Efficient Market is a myth, because there is no mass psychology, but rather a small group of individuals that invest money on behalf of the masses. ...more
Notes are private!
Jun 10, 2007
Jun 18, 2007
Oct 27, 2012
Oct 1996
Oct 01, 1996
really liked it
A basic introduction to the teachings of Chomsky
19 October 2012
I have this DVD about Noam Chomsky in which he laughs whenever everybody quotes the Ne A basic introduction to the teachings of Chomsky
19 October 2012
I have this DVD about Noam Chomsky in which he laughs whenever everybody quotes the New York Times as saying that he is 'arguably the most important intellectual alive' and true to fashion he then goes to point out the context in which that statement was made. This is the defining character of Noam Chomsky in that he is an expert on language and on the use of language. I can't actually remember what the context of this article was, but the one thing that Chomsky is recognised for is his contribution to the science of linguistics in creating a formula in which all languages can be connected.
However, many of us on the left, while acknowledging this aspect of Chomsky, tend to look beyond that to his contributions to the realm of political science. He is, in his own words, an 'Anarco-Syndicalist' which is basically an anarchist, but with some form of government where decisions can be made for the benefit of the people. He is also a strong critic of US foreign policy, and most of his works tend to focus on foreign policy decisions, particularly in relation to the US-Israel alliance, as well as mass media and its role in controlling the popular debate.
Language is Chomsky's speciality, and while many of us simply see language as a means to communicate, Chomsky sees is as a means of control and obfuscation. This is not new since Orwell went into details in 1984 regarding the use of 'double-speak', namely a way of using language to portray an idea that is in fact completely the opposite. It is also a way of numbing the mind and turning the population into sheep that can be pacified so that the ruling elite may attempt to push their agenda with our consent.
In reality, the ruling elite hate democracy, just in the same way that corporate CEOs hate having to rock up to an annual general meeting of retail shareholders every year. While the AGM is pretty much something that is a part of a process, democracy means that the people get to chose their leaders and if a leader does not meet their approval, they can remove them (or her). They have got around this problem by creating a party that openly supports their position, and a party that appears to oppose it, but in reality supports it. They are able to create a base from certain segments of society by either using what are termed 'political hot potatoes' (such as abortion and gay marriage), and by constantly bringing these issues into the light they are able to distract people from what they are really doing.
Another method that they use is the demonisation of certain philosophies, such as anarchism and socialism. Anarchism is the classic example in that many of us today consider anarchy as the complete breakdown in social order. Based on the Greek root word that is partially true. However, if we consider the word closely 'an-archos' actually means 'no ruler' (archos means ruler or leader, and the prefix a, or an, makes it an opposite). Thus, by claiming to be an anarcho-syndicalist, Chomsky is by no means claiming that he is seeking the breakdown in social order (in the same way that the anarchists of 19th century Russia were not seeking the breakdown of social order) but rather he is looking for a system where the rule is actually by the people as opposed to by the elite.
Another word that has been thrown into the public mind is the concept of revolution. Many of us, when we think of revolution we think of blood on the streets and a complete breakdown of order which then brings about a new system. However, this is not always the case as some will argue that revolution brings about a complete change which, in some cases, returns us to the position we were in before (as per Russia and France), rather a process which brings about a significant change. Many of us view a revolution as a good thing because it means that we throw out the old and bring in the new (albeit violently), however the ruling elite once again obfuscates that fact. For instance, the 'education revolution' that the Australian Labour Party enacted was not necessarily something that was new, but rather forced education backwards by privatising schools and by setting teachers against each other through competitiveness. Further, by introducing standardised testing, upon which schools and teachers would receive performance pay based on the results, the whole concept of education as a means of encouraging people to think is undermined and instead the system creates a world of Orwellian drones.
As for this book, this is a very good introduction to the philosophy and writings of Noam Chomsky. As I have mentioned previously, Chomsky does tend to continue to rehash many of his previous points in the books that he writes. It is best to read only a few of Chomsky's books, maybe some of the older, and some of the newer, ones otherwise you end up going over a lot old ground. I have commented on the Chomsky books that I have read, and maybe if you are interesting in exploring his thoughts further, you can look at them. ...more
Notes are private!
Mar 06, 2010
Mar 08, 2010
Oct 19, 2012
Jul 01, 1994
Jul 01, 2002
liked it
And now for the comeback tour
23 September 2012
This is probably one of those books that I cannot get away with simply saying that I read it long ago a And now for the comeback tour
23 September 2012
This is probably one of those books that I cannot get away with simply saying that I read it long ago and can't be bothered reading it again simply because a) I own the book and b) it pretty much takes only fifteen minutes to read, if that. My valid excuse as to not being able to read this book is that it is located in a plastic crate in a shed 700 kilometres from my present location, so unfortunately I actually do not have it at hand to reference what it actually says, but I suspect that I really do not need to do that because there is probably quite a lot I can say about the CIA anyway. However, I won't say anything about its history (which can be left for another book about the CIA that I read) but rather about some of the alleged schemes that they have allegedly performed.
This book goes through a number of the plots that the CIA have allegedly carried out though I can't remember what ones he specifically listed (apparently the bombing of the PAM-AM flight, which was linked to the Lybians, was one of them) but I sure can talk about some of the things that I do know. This book goes through a number of events that were performed by the precursor to the CIA up to operation Desert Storm, though I suspect there is some myth thrown into it as well. The suggestion is that they were acting on behalf of some shadowy organisation (known as the American Government) to keep certain people (namely foreign governments) in line and to remove other people (namely enemy combatants) from causing problems (for corporate America).
One incident involved the U2 spyplane which crashed over the Soviet Union. Initially it appeared that it was that the spyplane was shot down by the Russians because, well, it wasn't supposed to be there, however there is a suggestion that the CIA tipped the Russians off so that they could embarrass President Eisenhower. One would wonder why they would want to embarrass their boss, but the question I would like to put to you is haven't you ever wanted to embarrass your boss, especially if it creates an opening that you can then go in and fill. While this may not be the case with the President, the American Bureaucracy is huge and in reality the President does not control nearly all of it, and even if he does, he can find that the bureaucracy can and will fight back (as was the case with President Kennedy).
We all like to think that a wonderful country such as the United States could never sink so low as to do things like this, nor could they be controlled by some shadowy evil organisation, but we forget that the United States not only is an Imperial Superpower, but the President is not the be all and end all in government. Ignoring the conspiracy theorists, the President's powers are curtailed by both Congress and the Supreme Court, and while the President can issue executive orders to get around that (Cheney became an expert in that regard) he still has to have such support if he is to continue.
Also remember that (ignoring President Obama, who did come out of the slums) that the American electoral system is rigged so that only a certain type of person is able to become President, and that person needs to be nominated by one of the two big parties. No President, for over 150 years, has been elected from outside of one of these big parties. Secondly the electoral college means that the direct election of the President does not happen, so that puts a further dampener on the possibility that a popular candidate (like Hitler) could get into power. Mind you, it is still possible because despite the restrictions that the electoral college imposes, somebody that is able to garner 80% of the popular vote is going to be elected.
Now, about these conspiracy theories, and ignoring September 11, remember that in the past the United States Government has done things to get people to support it for a war. First was in 1917 with the sinking of the Lusitania. That was a set up, pure and simple. Basically a passenger liner taking civilians across the Atlantic was loaded with with military supplies, and the German's notified. Effectively they painted a big target on the ship that said 'sink me please'. Granted, the Germans should not have been stupid enough to actually sink the ship, but that is one point that I wish to make.
The second was before the Vietnam war known as the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident. That was went an American Patrol boat was sunk by a torpedo allegedly fired by the NVA. The problem was that the NVA actually didn't have a functional navy, and even if they did, they would have unlikely to have been able to take a boat out into the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin, which was swarming with American Ships, and sink the boat.
Anyway, to finish off here, I want to put forward my belief regarding September 11th. Namely there are people out there who point to engineering reports and building seven, and what not to say that it was a government conspiracy. Well, maybe it was, but my position still is the moderate position, in that the CIA knew about it, and even told the president that it was going to happen, and did nothing about it. The reason I say this is because they needed such an incident to happen to, guess what, mobilise for war. The war they wanted was not the war in Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq. If it was a real conspiracy, why was it that they didn't make it appear that it was Sadam who ordered the attacks as opposed to Bin Laden? Further, why did they go to war in Afghanistan first as opposed to Iraq. Granted, they wanted to go to Iraq because, as Donald Rumsfeld saids 'there are better targets there', but they were pressured to go into Afghanistan instead. Secondly, when they did go into Iraq why didn't they find any weapons of mass destruction. Surely a government that could go to huge lengths to orchestrate the September 11th attacks could have easily planted a nuclear centrifuge and a bio-weapons lab in Iraq (and as if the average Joe Blow would know what a centrifuge looked like). Instead, they were embarrassed that they were wrong, and shifted their rhetoric from disarming Sadam, to regime change (when we all know it was pretty much about oil, and allow Halliburton to make an absolute killing from the no-bid contracts). ...more
Notes are private!
Jul 13, 2008
Jul 13, 2008
Sep 23, 2012
Jul 15, 2010
really liked it
The Socratic response to government
7 September 2012
This dialogue takes place on the day before Socrate's execution in his cell between Socrates and h The Socratic response to government
7 September 2012
This dialogue takes place on the day before Socrate's execution in his cell between Socrates and his friend Crito. This dialogue is about another age old arguments: whether two wrongs go together to make a right. It is Socrates' position that they do not. One of the traditions of Athens was that political prisoners are given the opportunity to escape and live in exile, and even if a price were to be put on their head, the nature of Greek politics at the time meant that one could easily seek asylum in one of the neighbouring cities and not be handed back to the authorities. This was particularly the case at the time as Athens had just emerged as the loser from a rather devastating war, and her friends and allies were few and far between.
Basically Crito tries to argue that it would be wrong, and cowardly, for Socrates not to take the opportunity to escape, but a part of his argument seems to be self serving as it would appear that if his friends did not help him then it would look bad on them. However, he also tries to argue that it is obligatory for a father, who has the opportunity to live, to serve his children by remaining alive. While it is a very noble argument, it is clear, especially in the context of the Apology, that for Socrates to flee death would actually serve to undermine his character. His position is that by accepting the sentence, even though the trial in and of itself was unjust, he is in effect taking the high moral ground. The court voted for death, therefore if Socrates is to remain true to himself, he must accept the sentence of the court.
This is another of those dialogues that seem to have some very notable Christian undertones. It is reflective of Jesus willingly going to his death despite the court being corrupt, the sentence harsh, and the charges in effect bogus. The big difference we see here is that after the sentence was handed down Socrates had an opportunity to escape where as Jesus did not. Jesus was executed within hours of being found guilty. Further, Socrates' friends continued to support him right up until the time of his death whereas Jesus' friends pretty much deserted him the minute he was arrested. I guess the difference was that in 5th Century BC Athens, one was not necessarily going to be found guilty by association whereas this could be the case in 1st Century Palestine.
The main biblical undertone in this dialogue moreso relates to Paul's discussion on our response to government (found in Romans 13). Pretty much if Socrates were to be able to read that passage he would no doubt agree with it because we see the same idea here. It is the question of our obligation to the state and our obligation to obeying the laws of the state. It is in effect what is termed as the Social Contract: the state contracts with us to protect us and provide for us while we contract with the state to live within the boundaries of those laws. The difference between 1st Century Rome and 5th Century BC Athens is that one was a dictatorship and the other was a democracy (if in name only).
What we generally don't understand in relation to Paul's writings is the context of the times. For us living in liberal democracies where were have freedom of speech and association, the idea of obeying the laws of the land is second nature. The laws are hardly oppressive, and if the worse we can complain about is the fact that we cannot drink a beer while driving a car, or smoke in a pub, then we can consider ourselves very lucky indeed. We do not live in a land where the authorities can randomly pull us off the street and shoot us in the head simply because they are bored. This was not the case in Athens either because they still lived under the constitution as set out by Solon, despite the fact that it was seen that Socrates was unjustly tried. However, remember that the trial was conducted according to the Laws of Solon, and as such, for the rule of law to remain true to form it was necessary for Socrates to accept the ruling of the court and go to his death.
This was not the case when Paul was writing to the Romans. While Rome did have a constitution, as enacted by Numa Pompilius, that constitution had been shredded long ago by Augustus. Basically, in Rome of Paul's time, what the emperor said, went, and you did not talk back to him. In fact, as we read the succession of emperor's up to this period we notice that they steadily became more and more insane, right up until the point that Nero was running around lighting the streets with burning Christians and killing people for sport. In fact, it is recorded that one of Nero's hobbies was to wonder through Rome and mug people. Like, seriously, he considered himself to be so above the law that he could pretty much behave in a completely uncivilised manner. This was the world in which Paul wrote 'all governments have been appointed by God'. However, we also note that Nero was eventually removed from power, and not simply because somebody stuck a knife in him (as happened with Calligula). Mind you, after Nero was removed, the entire system shifted towards the point of collapse when Rome once again descended into Civil War, only to be saved by the Flavians.
Obviously none of this means that we should not stand up to unjust governments, or hold them accountable. Jesus did, as did Socrates, and both of them were executed for that. What they are saying is not that we should seek to hold people accountable, but we should not go and break laws to do so. Violent revolution was not in their bag of tricks designed to influence social change, and more so, in these cases, the real social change took a very long time to come into effect. In fact, much of what happened happened very slowly, and for social change to work it has to work slowly, because otherwise it does not allow the seeds to change to take root and grow. Consider the instances of France and Russia, two nations which sort social change through violent revolution. In the end it was a disaster for both cases. Some might argue that it worked in the case of the United States, but my position is that this was not a bottom up revolution, but rather a revolt of the wealthy elite against the British Crown. ...more
Notes are private!
Sep 05, 2012
Sep 07, 2012
Sep 07, 2012
© 2016 Goodreads Inc